1921-02-24

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
George Newcombe Gordon, Esq., member for the Electoral District of Peterborough West, introduced by Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. Charles Murphy.

[Stage Direction]
General Rules and Orders of the Exchequer Court, in accordance with the provisions of section 88 of the Exchequer Court Act, chapter 140., R.S.C., 1906.- Sir Henry Drayton.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr.   McM ASTER@: The object of this
Bill is to make it incumbent upon members who accept portfolios to resign all directorships in incorporated companies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we have learned
this morning the sad news of the death of a long-standing servant of this House, the Editor of Debates, Mr. Thomas P. Owens. Mr. Owens was first associated with the work of Parliament as Hansard reporter not less than thirty-three years ago, and on account of his very long and excellent service, I think an exception might be made to refer very briefly to him now. Previously to that, indeed, he occupied a place above your Chair, Sir, as representative of a leading Canadian newspaper. He, therefore, was virtually during the whole of his life in association with the Canadian House of Commons. He was appointed associate Editor of Debates in 1913; he became Editor of Debates in 1916; and the worth, indeed, the expertness of his ser vices, is known and admitted by all whc knew anything of his work. The warmth and geniality of his Irish character are also qualities that we shall one and all miss from this time forth, and many an hon. member of this House on either side will feel the loss of a kindly and attractive friend.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, it is eminently appropriate that reference should be made to the passing of one who for many years has been a highly valued and much trusted officer of the House of Commons staff: As my right hon. friend has said, Mr. T. P. Owens was associated with the staff of the House of Commons for a period of something like thirty-three years, first as a journalist, later as a reporter on the Hansard staff and for some years past as the chief of the Hansard staff and Editor of Debates. All hon. members of the House who knew him will feel at this time a deep sense of personal loss. They will miss one who at all times was the most kindly, courteous, open-hearted and affable of men. Mr. Owens held a position of great trust and responsibility. He took much pride in his work, and it was recognized, I think, by all that he brought to that important position qualities of judgment, of efficiency, of industry and of impartiality, which have helped to place the Canadian Hansard in

the fore-front of the records of debates of any of the Parliaments or legislative assemblies in the world. We alj deeply mourn his loss.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware, until I had taken my seat, that the late Editor of Debates of this House had passed to the Great Beyond. His death came as a shock to me. There is, I am sure, no member in this house who has not at some time experienced the kindness of our friend who has gone. I am, comparatively speaking, a young member in the House; I have not had the years of experience of either my right hon. friend who leads the Government (Mr. Meighen) or my hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) ; but I know, as a comparatively new member of this House, one of the memories I shall always have with me is the uniform kindness of the treatment given to young members by Mr. Owens. At all times he was geniality itself. He was a faithful servant of this House; he often gave valuable assistance to young members who were getting acquainted for the first time with the work of this House. I am sure we shall all miss him, and his passing away is a loss not only to the House but to the country.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order, "Orders of the Day."
Arthur Meighen: I rather expected to find, at
least the Government Order with regard to a motion which was passed yesterday, under the heading of "Orders of the Day." That not being the case, with the permission of the House, I desire to move, pursuant to the motion passed yesterday, that we pass to Government Orders now, for the sake of taking up Government Order No. 1, that is to say, Bill No. 2, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is quite competent
for the right hon. gentleman, without leave of the House, to move to proceed to Government Orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House thereupon proceeded to Government Orders.
House again in commitee on Bill No. 2. to amend the Dominion Elections Act.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1. Canada Temperance Act Vote in Ontario.
17i
Mr. GUTHRIE:: The committee will
notice that there is in this Bill only one substantive clause which is divided into sections numbered (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Since we met yesterday the Bill has received further consideration, and certain parties who are very much interested in the promotion of the Bill and others who are not so much interested have agreed to certain amendments for the purpose of bringing the proposed amendment more into harmony with the Franchise Act. The amendments proposed are as subclause (c) of clause 1 and a new subclause to be known as "(g)." Perhaps if I place those before the committee now, we can consider the clause as a whole. Subclause (c), which I will move, applies merely to the town of Aylmer and to the city of Peterborough. Voters' lists were prepared for the town of Aylmer last summer and for the city of Peterborough this spring, and it is proposed to adopt those lists subject to the ordinary right of adding names. The amendment is for the purpose of saving expense, and I think the committee will agree that, as the lists in those particular cases are of such recent preparation, nothing would be gained by having a full revision of those lists. The last amendment which I will move deals with the question of	scrutineers or agents attending the polls. The two bodies in Ontario who are anxious to appoint scrutineers in support of prohibition are the Dominion Alliance and the Ontario Referendum Committee.	They
both desire power to appoint scrutineers but it has been deemed fitting that we should give them a joint power; that is, let them jointly name a scrutineer for each poll. On the other hand, the same privilege has been asked by the Citizens' Liberty League of Ontario, and it has been deemed proper to give them a similar right. These scrutineers will have the ordinary rights of the agents of candidates under the Franchise Act of Canada. The amendment is somewhat long, but that is practically the only point it deals with, namely, the appointment of scrutineers.


Mr. EULER:: May I ask the minister whether these proposed amendments meet with the approval of both bodies that he mentions?


Hugh Guthrie: The suggestion is the joint suggestion of the three bodies I have mentioned. The meeting was held this morning.


The CHAIRMAN:: It is moved to amend section 1 by inserting after clause (b) of the present Bill the following as clause (c) clauses (c), (d) and (e) thereafter becoming (d), (e) and (f) :
(c) In the Town of Aylmer and in the City of Peterborough the voters' lists shall be the lists of voters as finally revised and completed for the last election of a member to serve in the House of Commons of Canada in the electoral districts of East Elgin and West Peterborough respectively; four copies of each of the said lists shall be furnished by the Chief Electoral Officer to the returning officer for the electoral districts in which the said town and city are respectively situate, and the said returning officers shall respectively furnish two copies thereof to the revising officers for the said city and town. The said copies shall be corrected by the revising officers, who shall deliver or send to each deputy returning officer, as required by Rule 20 of Schedule A to Section 32, one corrected copy of the lists for his polling division, and send the other corrected copy to the returning officer not later than the twelfth day before polling day.	___
The minister also moves to amend the said clause by adding at the end thereof the following sub-clause, to be known as sub-clause (g) :
(g) in lieu of the provisions of Section 52 of the Dominion Elections Act, the following provisions shall apply:
(1) The Deputy Returning Officer, the Poll Clerk, one or other, alternately, of the two agents or electors representing the persons interested in promoting an affirmative, and one or other alternately, of the agents or electors representing those interested in promoting a negative answer to, the question submitted, and no others, shall be permitted to remain in the room where the votes are given during the time the poll remains open.
(ii) On behalf of the persons interested in promoting an affirmative answer to the question submitted the Dominion Alliance (Ontario Branch) and the Ontario Referendum Committee jointly shall be entitled to appoint the agents aforesaid, and every such appointment shall be made in writing by such person in each electoral district as may be notified to the Returning Officer jointly by Ben.- H. Spence and Andrew S. Grant, the secretaries of the Dominion Alliance (Ontario Branch) and the Ontario Referendum Committees respectively; on behalf of the persons interested in promoting a negative answer to the question submitted, the Citizens' Liberty League shall be entitled to appoint the agents aforesaid, and every such appointment shall be made in writing by such person in each electoral district as may be notified to the Returning Officer by C. D. Boyce, the secretary of the Citizens' Liberty League aforesaid.
Oil) If the Dominion Alliance (Ontario Branch) or the Ontario Referendum Committee, or the Citizens' Liberty League hereafter changes its secretary, such changes may be notified to the chief electoral officer, who shall advise the returning officers thereof, and notifications of the persons in each electoral district authorized to appoint agents may thereafter be given by the secretaries so substituted.
(iv) If only one agent is appointed under the provisions of the preceding subsections to act at

any poll on behalf either of the persons interested in promoting an affirmative or of those interested in promoting a negative answer tc the question submitted, such agent may select an elector to act and alternate with him, and if no agents are so appointed to act at any poll, any two electors may act as agents at such poll on behalf of those interested in promoting either an affirmative or a negative answer to such question, as the case may be, provided that an agent appointed as hereinbefore mentioned may at any time during the poll substitute himself for either or both of the electors, who have, in the absence of any agent, undertaken to act.
(v) Every agent or elector acting under the provisions hereinbefore contained shall, on being admitted to the polling station, take an oath to keep secret the answer made to the questions submitted by any voter who has marked his ballot paper in his presence.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I just want to call the
attention of the minister to the fact that whilst this is a Bill, I understand, to amend certain sections of the Dominion Elections Act so far as the province of Ontario is concerned, the town of Aylmer is really in the county of Wright in the province of Quebec. I believe, however, there is a place called Aylmer in the province of Ontario, and so as to avoid confusion, and as the people of the town of Aylmer in the province in Quebec have always been a temperate people and would not require any such legislation, the minister might in future in speaking of the town of Aylmer, refer to it as the town of Aylmer in the province of Quebec, and if he wishes to allude to the other place, which is named after the town of Aylmer in the province of Quebec, refer to it as Aylmer, Ontario.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sure we all know
the very excellent reputation of the town of Aylmer in the province of Quebec, but this Bill has reference at the present time only to the province of Ontario, so therefore I do not see the necessity of making the distinction.


Mr. VBUREAU:: Yesterday we were
asked by the minister to adjourn the committee because of two bodies who were asking for amendments to the Bill. To-day the amendments are brought down, and they are so lengthy it takes the chairman ten or fifteen minutes to read them. We have never seen these amendments and know nothing about them, although from the chairman's reading, I understand, that some powers are delegated to men nomina-tively-one was named Mr. Boyce. I do not know whether provision is made for replacing him in case of death or other eventuality. I do not think it is right for the Acting Solicitor General to try and make us swallow an amendment of two or

three pages without a chance of reading it. If we simply say "yes," and let the amendments pass the House, without ever reading them, if anything happens afterwards, we would be told: "You do not attend to your duties; you just shut your eyes and let these things go through." I for one will not consent to these amendments being passed until I have had an opportunity of reading them in Hansard to-morrow morning and comparing them with the Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to supplement what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) by pointing out to the minister that on this occasion he seems to have forgotten, or deliberately overlooked, the courtesy which is customary in cases of this kind of furnishing the Opposition, a little in advance of the meeting of the House, with a copy of proposed amendments. My hon. friend asked us, as a matter of courtesy, if we would permit the Government to go on with this measure and we gave our consent. He might, I think, have shown a little appreciation of the spirit in which we met him by furnishing us with a copy of these amendments before he asked us to vote upon them in this committee. The amendment is three times as long as the Bill itself, and unless this Parliament is to lose altogether its character as a deliberative assembly, we should have time to deliberate upon the amendments which the minister proposes.	>


Hugh Guthrie: There can be no objection to the taking of a reasonable time to deliberate on the amendments. The only thing is, the time is limited, because the Bill will have to be assented to next week if it is to be operative at all. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition should not impute any discourtesy in this matter. He has endeavoured to do so, and I think the charge is rather small.


Jacques Bureau: It is on a par with the answers of the Prime Minister.


Hugh Guthrie: The amendment is one appertaining only to the appointment of scrutineers. It was prepared at exactly three o'clock to-day and handed to my hon. friend immediately after prayers.


Jacques Bureau: Too short a time.


Hugh Guthrie: The charge of discourtesy is entirely uncalled for. However, if my hon. friends want reasonable time in which to consider the Bill, or the clauses submitted, why, the House will be
quite willing, I have no doubt, to grant thgj; time; and for that purpose I move that the further consideration in Committee be postponed, and that the Committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again to-morrow. But hon. members will have to bear this in mind, that if the Bill is to go through hnd become operative in order that the vote may be taken on April 18th, it will have to receive the Royal Assent next week; otherwise it will be futile.


Jacques Bureau: It is not our fault if the amendments are not ready. The acting Solicitor General says that he got the amendment only at three o'clock. He knew yesterday that these people would ask for amendments, and it was not incumbent on the leader of the Opposition or of any hon. members on this side to get after those gentlemen, the Liberty League and all others interested in temperance work. It was the duty of the man or of the member handling the Bill, and if there is any delay in this matter we are not to blame. The only person to blame is he who has charge of the Bill, and those interested in it; and for my part I absolutely disclaim any share of blame which might accrue in respect of delay. On the other hand, I will not consent to the passage of any legislation, emanating especially from my hon. friend or from any other member on that side of the House, with my eyes closed or until I have had an opportunity to look into the matter carefully.


Hugh Guthrie: There would be a good deal of force in the remarks of my hon. friend if there were any radical change proposed. If there were any real substance in the amendments his statements would have some weight, but they deal almost exclusively with matters of form,- one affecting voters' lists prepared very recently


Jacques Bureau: Allow me a question.
Mr. GUTHRIE-in Peterborough, and the other appertaining merely to the appointment of scrutineers. I say they are not substantial changes and should not delay the Committee. But if hon. gentlemen desire time we will give it, provided, however, it be understood that this is not with any view to delaying the passage of the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend says
there is no departure from the law as it stands.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say that; I said there was no substantial change.


Jacques Bureau: Well, will my hon.
friends show me a clause in the election law where a third party not interested in the election is entitled to have representatives at the poll?-people filling a quasijudicial role in the election. Is not that a departure from the principle of the Elections Act?


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say there was no departure.


Jacques Bureau: You said there was
nothing substantial. Of course, different people may interpret the word "principle" differently, but I sajr that these changes constitute a substantial departure from the principle of the Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, resumed from Wednesday, February 23.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of my contribution to this debate, I wish to say a word of congratulation to my right hon. friend who leads the Government (Mr. Meighen) on his accession to the important office of Prime Minister of this country. It is not too much to say that my right hon. friend has won his place by hard work and strict attention to the business of his party. It is particularly gratifying to myself, coming as I do from Western Canada, that one who has been identified with the life of Western Canada for many years should be chosen for this high office. It is perhaps an evidence of the growing importance of that portion of Canada in the councils of the whole Dominion. I do not know that I can extend my congratulations to my right hon. friend on the difficulties of the tasks that lie ahead of him; nevertheless whatever paths our fortunes in the future may lead us into, I am sure that he will give the best that is in him to the service of his country.
I desire also to offer my felicitations to the mover and seconder of the motion which we are considering. The mover (Mr. 
Mclsaac) has been in this House for a considerable period. His speech was happily phrased and, of course, contained, as is customary on such occasions, the necessary laudation of the Government of which he is a supporter. That was to be expected. My hon. friend took a timely opportunity, for I am very much afraid, Mr. Speaker, from what I hear from his little province down by the sea, that he will not again have the opportunity of repeating the address which he delivered the other day on the occasion of this motion. That being the case, I am, shall I say, all the happier in offering him my felicitations. My hon. friend (Mr. MacKelvie), who seconded the motion, comes from a far western province; he is a new member in this House. I had no* the pleasure of listening to his address, but from reading it and hearing what my hon. friends on both sides of the House have said in respect to it, I wish to offer him my congratulations on the success he made of a rather difficult job.
It perhaps might be in order now for me to say a word or two about the speech from the Throne and about the addresses given by my right hon. friend who leads the Government and by the leader of the Opposition in the opening discussion upon it. It seemed to me that their speeches might be paraphrased very briefly as follows:
The leader of the Opposition says: "I want you to get out; you are a usurper; your time has expired;" my right hon. friend the leader of the Government replies : "I am going to stay here just as long as I can." And that is about the sum-total of what was contained in the speeches of my two hon. friends. Now, I would offer this criticism, that the difficulties of the times we are in call for something a little more constructive from the leaders of the two majority parties in this Chamber.
I come now to a consideration of the speech itself, and I may say at the outset that it is rather a meagre bill of fare. In fact it reminds me somewhat of the statement of assets and liabilities that is put out by a concern when it is going into bankruptcy-


Mr.   McM ASTER@: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: and that is about the position, I am afraid, that my hon. friends opposite are in with respect to the present Government.
The speech, of course, contains the customary congratulations on the opening of Parliament, and the necessary admonitions

to members to pay strict attention to their duties, which of course was to be expected. But the speech goes on and makes a reference to the freedom from unrest in this country at the present time. That I think is a true statement. There is no country in the world to-day that is so free from unrest, or that has been so free from unrest for several years past, as this fair Dominion of Canada. I am particularly glad to see this statement in the speech from the Throne because a few months ago from a very careful reading of the speeches of the leader of the Government-speeches that he delivered in various parts of the Dominion, speeches delivered in the province of Ontario and also in the province of Quebec-I really was afraid, Sir, that we were in imminent danger of a red revolution in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think that perhaps now, in his sober moments, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister regrets the extravagance of his language on some of those occasions. At any rate, I am glad to know that there is an entire absence from his recent speeches of that note of criticism. My right hon. friend was playing at politics when he was engaged in making those speeches. He was endeavouring to raise the old prejudices and the old passions in this country-the prejudices of one section against another, the prejudices of one class in a community against another class.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Bolshevism.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And for what reason,
Mr. Speaker? In order that he might reap some political advantage. Why did my right hon. friend take the occasion to make these speeches down in the province of Quebec? He knows that that province is one of the most cautious and conservative provinces in the Dominion as far as change is concerned. He goes to the province of Quebec and he raises this bogey. Why did he do that? To arouse prejudices. I do not wish to make my language too strong, but he did it, at any rate, to create a feeling in that province against the new political movement that has had its birth in Western Canada; and I am bound to say that he was not performing a very notable service to his country when he was doing that work. Mr. Speaker, the fishing in the province of Quebec has not beeen very successful. That is not because of any lack of
effort on the part of my right hon. friend, because I have noticed a very enticing note in the speeches delivered by him there. Well, he has been successful in getting one recruit. That recruit is not yet seated on the far side of the Chamber, but he is working his way round and perhaps, eventually will land there.
In the speech from the Throne there is also a reference to the fact that the Department of Labour is carrying on an investigation into the matter of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. The speech simply contains the bald announcement. There is no statement of Government policy in the matter. The Government might just as well have inserted in the speech that the Minister of Finance was thinking of undertaking another tariff investigation. The bald statement means nothing. Has the Government any policy in the matter? Do they contemplate any policy with respect to these questions? If so, the House is entitled to know what that policy is. Is there anything behind this announcement in the speech from the Throne? Is it the purpose of the Government to introduce a measure dealing with these matters later on? I have just this to say in that connection: I have every sympathy with any movement that is designed or intended to alleviate distress in our country, or for that matter in any other country; but I assert, and I offer the suggestion to the leader of the Government, that this Canada of ours provides opportunity enough for labour to those who are willing to work so that they can make their way well and decently in the world, if they are given a fair opportunity to do so. For unemployment insurance and old age pensions, while they may, some time in the future, give concern to this country, there exists no very great need at present, provided we have fair and equitable laws and give every person in this Dominion a chance to make their living in decency and comfort. However, it might be, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friends opposite, and the Government in particular, are contemplating an early appeal to the country and possibly they have in mind that some little advantage may be derived from holding out the proposition to the labouring people of Canada that they are considering their interests in the matter of old age pensions and unemployment insurance.
The speech also contains the announcement, which every one expected, that the Government are going to undertake tariff

revision at the present session. The Minister of Finance did very strenuous work in the journeys he made back and forth in Canada a few months ago, collecting evidence with respect to the character his new tariff proposals shall take when they are submitted to the House. I cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that it was a labour of love as far as my hon. friend is concerned. I had the opportunity of attending the sitting of the Tariff Commission on one or two occasions and I extended my sympathy to my hon. friend because of the difficulty of the task he had. After all, was there very much need of all this show about the tariff inquiry? The Government had announced its policy a year ago, it was to be the old policy of protection in Canada- "adequate protection to Canadian industries." This tariff inquiry, conducted at considerable cost to the country, was, Mr. Speaker, just so much play in order to influence public opinion; and I venture this assertion-and I am sure the Minister of Finance if he were free to do so would endorse it-that in his whole investigation from Vancouver to Halifax, in all the mass of evidence he listened to and collected, in all the representations made to him, he really got very little that was of practical value in the framing of his tariff proposals. However, the work went on, and I will say this for the Minister of Finance, he discharged his duty in that regard very faithfully and energetically. The pronouncement in the speech from the Throne, in regard to the tariff, merely confirms what we already knew, or what any person familiar with the recent history of this country knew, as to what the policy of the Government is in the matter.
I wish in passing to make a few references to this subject. The speech from the Throne states:
It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries, including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained ;
Assistance to agriculture! I have been wondering if my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) got that little clause slipped into this declaration to leave the impression that a system of protection was of assistance to agriculture in this Dominion. Why, Sir, the thing is ridiculous. What are our chief argicultural products? They are wheat, live stock, dairy products, potatoes, 
fruits; and in every one of these products this country produces away and beyond what we can possibly consume at home. Therefore it follows, as night follows day, that the value we get for all these commodities is fixed in the markets of the world, and not in the home market. Consequently when my hon. friends in the Government make the pious declaration in this pronouncement, that they are maintaining this policy to protect argiculture in Canada, they are simply "beating up against the wind." It may be that some of my hon. friends opposite have in their constituencies market gardeners close to cities who will benefit temporarily by the exclusion of certain vegetables at particular seasons of the year, but to claim that protection is an aid to Canadian agriculture as a whole is to make a ridiculous assertion that has no warrant in fact.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to one other declaration in this respect. It states, that this policy of protection will be followed in order to secure revenue and to obtain the necessary protection of our industries. My right hon. friend who leads the Government (Mr. Meighen) placed the issue very fairly in his speeches throughout Canada in respect to tariff matters, and I commend him for it. I am among those who believe in clear declarations on questions of public policy, and my right hon. friend left the country in no doubt as to where he stands upon this question of protection. But he did not always support his conclusions by sound arguments. My right hon. friend stated at various places, as indeed is contained in this declaration here, that this tariff will be a tariff to produce revenue and to maintain protection. Now, I ask: How can that be done? If your tariff is a protective tariff, what is it based upon? It is based upon the principle of protection of your own home industries, and to the extent that it protects your home industries, it excludes foreign goods; and if it does, where does your revenue come in?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Surely my hon. friends opposite must realize the truth of this simple statement. Of course, it may be that their study of the question has been very limited, and that in the enjoyment of the privilege which has come to them under protection they have neglected to analyze the situation as far as its general effect upon the country is concerned. But, nevertheless, that is the plain fact of the case.

If your purpose is to get revenue from your tariff, you cannot get that revenue if your tariff is based on the principle of protection in the expectation of excluding goods from the country to encourage the development of industries at home.


Mr. CURRIE :: Where did we get revenue in the past?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) will have his opportunity later. Now, I submit that there is a distinct difference between a tariff based on the principle of protection and a tariff based on the principle of revenue, and when my hon. friends opposite endeavour to link the two together they are simply endeavouring to mislead the people of this country; I commend my hon. friends opposite for the frankness with which they have placed the question before the country. But let them go a little bit further, let them make this statement to the country:	Our protective tariff is a tariff to encourage industry at home and is not designed to raise revenue. If they will do that, I will agree that they are consistent throughout, but to the degree they endeavour to mix up the raising of revenue with the maintainence of protection they are upon inconsistent ground.
I stated a little while ago that the speech from the Throne was a very meagre document. One would think that we were living in the period fifteen or twenty years before the war. There is no reference in that speech to the most vital matters that are pressing upon this country at the present time; and if I may do so, I would express my regret that there was very little reference in the speeches either of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government or of the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition in respect to these matters.
I should like for a moment to deal with the financial position of this country. We have the statement in the speech from the Throne that we find in all such speeches, that the Estimates will be prepared with due regard for economy and the public interest. Now, it is a fact patent to everyone who is following with any degree of interest at all the business of this country, that our revenues at the present time are shrinking, and shrinking very seriously. The buoyancy in revenues that resulted from the buoyancy in business during the period of the war and immediately following it is disappearing, and I dare say that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is spending sleepless
nights wondering how he is going to provide the needed revenue in face of the falling income. That shrinkage, Sir, I think is bound to continue. I am not a pessimist, but I believe in facing facts squarely. If you speak to business men, if you discuss the matter with the travellers of business firms throughout this country, you will find that business is dull if not indeed stagnant. I am afraid that is not a merely passing phase, because we have to study this thing in respect to our relationship with the whole world, and consequently in view of the fact that we will have difficulty in getting our revenues in future, the need of economy in our public administration is more pressing than ever before in our history.
And what are the facts in respect to that, Sir? I believe it was the tendency in this country, as it was the tendency in every other country engaged in the war, to spend freely during the war. War conditions developed spending habits not only in governments, but in individuals as well, and that was the experience in this country. And I offer a word of criticism of the Government, in that they have not given due regard to the needs of economy. Our total expenditure for the present fiscal year will be close to $400,000,000, if indeed it does not exceed that figure. Our total expenditure before the war was around $130,000,000 a year. My hon. friends will say: Oh, but we have had great increases to our national debt, and consequently in the amount of interest we have to pay upon it, all due to the war. I grant that. But if we take the total increase in expenditure due to causes arising out of the war, that in my judgment will not amount to more than $175,000,000. Now, if we take $175,000,000 from our $400,000,000, we still have $225,000,000 as the average expenditure of this country under normal conditions, whereas before the war that expenditure was $130,000,000 a year.
I can give further evidences of the lack of economy on the part of the Government. The Government to-day are building a dry dock in the city of Victoria. I believe that is to redeem a pledge made by the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) when he was contesting the by-election in that constituency. According to reports, this dry dock will cost $4,500,000. At the same time we see reports in the press-and I believe they are true-that shipbuilding companies, and I believe as well a dry dock company in Prince Rupert, have gone

into the hands of receivers. Then we have the report which appeared in the press a few days ago-synchronizing, curiously enough, with the period of the by-election in the constituency of West Peterborough-to the effect that a dam was being built in Peterborough constituency at a cost of $250,000. This report has not been denied; indeed, I believe it had official authority. I merely refer in passing to a few of these expenditures, in order to emphasize the fact that this is not the policy this country should be following at the present time. What is needed in Canada is a programme of rigid economy in every department of the public service. That applies not only to our federal activities, but also to all our provincial governments and to individual citizens. Only by adopting such a policy can we retrieve our position and escape the dangers and difficulties that are ahead of us.
We could very wisely effect economy in another direction. We hear a good deal in these days, Sir, about a naval holiday among the nations of the world. Well, I think we in Canada might take a naval holiday. My hon. friend who has the distinction of being the first Sea Lord of our Canadian Admiralty may not agree with me.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: Not at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But I do think, Sir, that for the next five years we might very well forget about naval expenditures in this country. One of the greatest mistakes this Government has made, in my judgment, was the acceptance of several war vessels from the British government, resulting in our having to incur the additional expenditure, inevitably attendant upon it.
Then, we have the expenditure in connection with our militia. We are rapidly developing a ministry of war in Canada. Last year this Parliament voted over $22,000,000 for naval and military and police purposes in Canada. Is that economy? I suggest- and I do it in the best of temper and, I believe, in the interests of the country-to my hon. friends opposite, I suggest to the members of the Government, that in framing their Estimates for the present year they take into consideration the fact that we must get our country back into a solid financial condition, and that one of the agencies through which we must work to achieve that is the agency of economy in public administration.

And this brings me to another matter, and that is the condition of trade in Canada. It is a notable fact that our trade with Europe is falling off. The figures, Mr. Speaker, are illuminating and a little alarming. In 1918 we exported to Great Britain $568,000,000 worth of goods. In 1919 that had fallen to $528,000,000 worth and in 1920 to $341,000,000 worth. I venture to say that the coming year will show an even further decline in those figures. Our exports to France in 1918 were valued at $97,000,000; in 1919 at $65,000,000 and in 1920 at $47,000,000. Now, a very patent reason for this is found in the condition of international ex-4 p.m. changes as between Europe and North America. The British pound to-day is at a heavy discount both in Canada and in the United States. That applies with even greater force to the French franc, to the Italian lire, and to all the currencies of Europe. And, as is natural and to be expected, European countries are doing business with other countries of the world where the exchange is more on a parity with their own than is the case in Canada and the United States. I am afraid, Sir, that this condition will continue for several years. One of the surest guarantees we can have of the revival of prosperity in America is the bringing about of a settled condition in Europe. But when we look over the European field to-day; when we see the consequences of the war in the disruption and the strife that still prevail as between nations; when we see European countries spending on armaments, and equipment for war the money that should be spent to feed and clothe their peoples-we are offered but a very dull prospect for any speedy revival of business and industry on that continent. Whether we wish it or not, therefore, these facts are patent and cannot be thrust aside. Where, then, are we to develop our trade? I submit, Sir, that the country with which we can best trade for the next number of years is the country immediately to the south of us, although some of my hon. friends opposite may not agree with me in this.


John Allister Currie: I guess you can't.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend cannot
trade with Europe. He cannot trade with Australia, because Australia cannot pay him. Where is he going to trade? Or is he going to surround this country with a high board fence and neither climb out nor

permit anybody else to climb in? If he does so, I venture the opinion that that course will not get him very far.
What are the figures of our growing trade with the United States? In 1910 we exported $110,000,000 worth of goods to that country. In 1912 that figure had grown to $112,000,000; in 1914 to $176,000,000; in 1918 to $440,000,000, and in 1920, the year that has passed, our exports to our southern neighbour had grown to $560,000,000. Is not that a desirable market to cultivate-the one to which your exports are growing, and which promises to take more and more still as time goes on? It is the eminently sensible thing to do.
I should like to say a word also in criticism of some of my hon. friends opposite who rather hold up the bogey of adverse exchange with the United States as a reason why we should cease trading with that country. The argument has been advanced that we should cease buying from the United States because they will not pay the full value of our Canadian dollar. Well, you might as well have the argument from an importer in the United States that he will not buy from Canada because we charge him a premium on his dollar when we sell to him. But as a matter of fact this condition, as was pointed out in this House a year ago, is not due alone to an adverse balance of trade with the United States. If my hon. friend opposite think that it is how do they account for this fact; that while in January a year ago the adverse balance of trade as between Canada and the United States was over $31,000,000, and our dollar was at a discount of a little less than nine per cent, in the month of December last, when the adverse balance of trade as between Canada and the United States was only $4,000,000, the discount on our dollar had grown to 19 per cent. If the discount on our dollar is due to the adverse balance of trade, why does it not tend to correct itself as the balance of trade tends to right itself. As a matter of fact, if we examine the trade figures as between Canada and the United States for past years, we shall find that ten years ago, fifteen years ago, the adverse balance of trade between Canada and the United States was relatively much greater than it is to-day. There can be no doubt that this market is a very valuable one for Canada, Moreover, I am commencing to note, amongst the business interests of Canada, a recognition of the need for extending our markets. A few
weeks ago; Mr. John Galt, President of the Union Bank of Canada, made this statement at the annual meeting of that institution :
It is clearly now the critical hour and the commercial flag of Canada should be carried into every available market abroad.
The policy of my hon. friends opposite is to keep goods out of the country and to prevent goods from going out of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friends have a very dim and misty understanding of the elementary principles of trade. Mr. Galt stated further:
A larger vision and determination of this kind is necessary. We must either go forward or go back, and it cannot be thought that we are to recede into the position of a country that merely produces for home consumption, when we have demonstrated that we have the means and capacity for world competition in almost any avenue of trade.
That is a note I like to hear sounded by our business men throughout Canada-a note of optimism and courage.
A short time afterwards, Sir Herbert Holt, at the annual meeting of the Royal Bank, made a similar statement, as follows:
Only by increasing the sale of Canadian commodities can we avoid increasing our foreign indebtedness. Never, even in war time, was it so essential to increase our exports. A duty falls on manufacturers to produce articles of a quality and a price that will compare favourably with foreign makes and on our agricultural interests to increase production.
I agree with every word of these declarations. They are wise and sound and courageous words. Ten years ago we had an offer of reciprocity with the United States in natural products, and to the great misfortune of Canada that proposition was turned down at that time. I was sincerely glad to know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), in a recent address delivered in New York, spoke of the need of neighbourliness as between these two countries. I cordially agreed with every word he uttered. We should avoid anything that will tend to create animosities. But while the Minister of Trade and Commerce was pleading in New York for neighbourliness, some of his colleagues were denouncing our neighbours to the south because they were giving us only eighty or ninety cents for our Canadian dollar. My hon. friends should endeavour to be consistent in their policy in respect to this matter.

I am satisfied our Canadian manufacturers can hold their own in the American field. One of the strongest arguments used in Canada against the adoption of reciprocity was that if in return for the free entry of our wheat into the United States we permitted the free entry of United States flour and wheat into Canada, our Canadian millers would go by the board and their business would cease to exist. Is that borne out by the facts? We have had this condition in this country for the last several years, and what are the facts to-day? In the last four months our Canadian mills have exported on an average over 175,000 barrels of flour a month to the United States market, and that market is now becoming one of the most important markets for our Canadian millers. The fact is that we produce in this country things that are essential to the United States, and we should cultivate, in the most friendly way, the possibilities of developing that market for our products. Canada is a country of illimitable natural resources, we have one of the finest agricultural countries in the world; we have vast areas of timber and mineral wealth, and vast fisheries. What are we going to do with these? Let us develop these industries that are natural to the country, seek markets abroad, and as you seek markets abroad and your commerce expands., the wealth and prosperity of your country will expand as well. Our manufacturers are too timid; they are like timid children, afraid of the dark. You know, when a child goes into the dark, how timid it is, and after all there are no dangers there. But if our Canadian manufacturers will develop initiative and resourcefulness, and the capacity to stand on their feet without favour from the Government, they can hold their own in any market in the world, because they have in this country the natural conditions that will support them in doing so.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Did the reciprocity
agreement recognize the fact which my hon. friend has stated?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The reciprocity agreement went only a short step in the right direction. There is, however, one other criticism that I have to make, in the most friendly way, of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), and that is that the Department of Trade and Commerce is not at the present time discharging its duty in respect to the development of trade with our great neighbour to the
 v_
South. What are thd conditions? The United States Government has to-day in Canada over one hundred consuls, the great majority of these being in reality trade agents. You find them scattered over this country from the Pacific to the Atlantic. What are they doing? They are, in their way, quite properly, placing with prospective Canadian customers the advantages of trading with and buying from firms in the United States. We have agents abroad, but where do we find them? We have a trade agent in the Argentine Republic; we have one in Australia; we have one in Brazil; we have trade representatives in China; we'have them in New Zealand, in Italy, in France, in Holland and in South Africa; but we have not one in the United States. I would suggest, I hope in a spirit of constructiveness, the need, the advisability of the department over which my right hon. friend presides, getting busy in this direction. We have our greatest customers to the South. More than one-half of the trade of Canada is done with the United States, and in that direction lies the best opportunity we have in the near years approaching for the development and extension of our trade. The United States is changing. We hear at present a good deal of talk in the newspapers of the Fordney Bill, and of what the Republican party may do when it comes into office a few weeks hence. Any business man who is familiar with the present condition of public opinion in the United States is aware of this fact that there is not in the Republican party that strength of support for a protective tariff that there was a number of years ago. I have noticed that very prominent men in the Republican party are doubting the wisdom of the application of the principle of protection to American industries. And they are wise.
What is the position of the United States? The last census revealed the fact that in the United States proper there is a population of 106,000,000 people. Almost two-thirds of those live in incorporated towns and cities; one-third live in hamlets and unincorporated villages and in the rural districts. In the United States there
are	to-day	two people	eating	foodfor	every	one that produces.	Whatwill	be the condition	twenty	yearsfrom	now-	-thirty years	from	now?
Possibly many present here will live to see that country with a population of 200,000,000 people, and is it not the part of wisdom to develop our resources, to develop our agriculture, so that we will be in a

position to supply them with the foodstuffs they will inevitably need? They are buying foodstuffs from us to-day. Last year they took $150,000,000 of the foodstuffs we produced, and among this $30,000,000 worth of live stock. One of the best markets the western farmer has had for his wheat for the past five months has been the country to the south of us and a good many are looking with doubt and some trepidation as to what may happen the great industry of agriculture in this country should the United States again raise the barriers against Canada that existed prior to 1912. That emphasizes once more the unfortunate consequences that may flow from the rejection of reciprocity in 1911.
And now I come to another important matter, our national railways;-one would have thought there would be some reference in the speech from the Throne to their state of financial health. Last year this House was informed that our railways had a deficit of $48,000,000 and I saw recently a newspaper item stating that the deficit this year would run between $60,000,000 and $70,000,000. Since that statement was not denied, I take it that when the official figures are supplied some time hence they will be somewhere around that mark. Now that is a very serious state of affairs. There is no need here to go into the question of government ownership in Canada, and how we came to acquire these roads. We have to deal with the situation as it exists, but we have no suggestion from the Government in the speech from the Throne as to what shall be done in connection with this difficulty. We have even less from my hon. friend who leads the Opposition, either in the speech he delivered in this House on the Address, or in any of the speeches he has made throughout the country. Now it does seem to me that there are certain facts standing out in respect to this difficulty to which we should give consideration. I am convinced of this, that if our railway problem is made a matter of party controversy, nothing but harm can come to the country from it. I would offer this suggestion: that there should be appointed a special committee of this House to deal alone with this question, and reporting of course to Parliament. I think the Government might very well welcome that assistance. It is a difficult matter to discuss the problem here in this Chamber as a body of shareholders would discuss a similar proposition at a meeting, and it is idle
now to discuss the causes that lead up to the present unsatisfactory state of affairs. We have to face the situation as it exists. But it does seem to me that if we had a special committee constituted from among the members of this House, who would go into this thing as business men, and not as partisans, we might possibly render some service in finding a solution for this difficulty. I am convinced that sooner or later, and I believe the sooner the better, we must have a revaluation of the whole system of Government railways in Canada. There is no doubt of the fact that there has been a duplication of lines owing to the method of building in the past, and much loss has arisen from that cause, not only in capital outlay but in operating as well. You can travel to-day west of Edmonton for several hundred miles and find this duplication. In some cases-I have travelled over the road myself-the rails are as close together as the two sides of this Chamber. The rails have been lifted off one road, but yet there are outstanding against it issues for which the country is responsible, running up to probably $100,000 a mile. If we get this thing down to a definite business basis, we can start afresh.
I would also offer this suggestion. The Board of Directors of the National Railways might well be reorganized. I believe the Government had that in contemplation a year ago. I would go even further and offer the suggestion that was made, I believe, when this matter was first under discussion by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), that it would be a wise step to give the employees of the Government roads one or two representatives on the directorate. To come through this difficulty successfully the roads must have behind them the loyalty and the interest of the employees in the system as regards its operation and management generally.
Then we must go a step further. We must develop business for the road, and in that connection I wish to make reference to the matter of immigration. That is a pressing question for this country, and yet no reference was made to it in the speech delivered by His Excellency the other day. Our national railways have this advantage, that in the greater part of Canada they pass through a territory that is fertile and productive. I know that is true of the Prairie Provinces, and I believe it is true in a large measure of Eastern Canada. Part of the solution of this question, I

' am convinced, will lie in the adoption of a vigorous policy of immigration, to get immigrants who will go on the land. The immigrants when they come here should he settled-and the whole force and power of the Government should be exerted to that end-in the districts adjacent to our national railways. If that is done, they will at any rate create business for the roads in the future. The way is dark in connection with this matter, but I have confidence enough in our country and in the people of Canada to believe that if we set ourselves energetically to the solution of this problem before many years we shall emerge from the present difficulty, and in another decade or two our national railways will be an asset of which the country may justly be proud.
I had thought also that we might have in the speech from the Throne a reference to the proposed visit that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will make to attend the Premiers' conference in London, which I understand takes place in June. So far, we have had no declaration from the Government as to what will happen at that conference. I did notice, however, the other day a cable despatch from London, containing a statement made by Mr. Lloyd George in the British House of Commons, which assembled, I believe, the day after this House met. I want to read that statement to this House because I think it has some real significance for us:
Mr. Lloyd George stated that the conference of Empire Premiers to be held in London in June will be the most momentous event in the history of the Empire.
He declared that it was too much to ask of these small islands that they undertake the whole burden of the defence of a gigantic empire in every sea, and that at the forthcoming conference of Prime Ministers of the Dominions in London the whole problem of Imperial defence must be considered.
There must be, the Prime Minister went on, co-ordination not only between the various services, but between the several parts of the Empire.
Now this is a very definite and very significant declaration that has come from the British Prime Minister within the last week or ten days. I wonder what the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government has in mind in respect to this matter. Is it too much to ask that we should have a declaration from the Government in respect to all these matters that may come up?
I hold this view, which I have expressed before in this House, that before this country is committed to any scheme of joint Imperial defence, or to anything else in the way of Imperial arrangements the 
sanction of this Parliament should be obtained, and I offer this word of admonition or, shall I say, of advice to my right hon. friend, should he have the responsibility in the matter-that when he meets the British Prime Minister and the other members of the conference he will jealously guard Canada's rights and interests in these matters. I am sure it is his intention to do so, but I was a little bit diconcerted when I heard a month or so ago that my right hon. friend contemplated taking with him, as his colleagues on this mission, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ballantyne) who heads the navy of Canada and my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) who is the Minister of War for Canada. If this should happen to he the case I would all the more strongly urge upon my right hon. friend to step warily in his negotiations in this matter.
I come now to another matter, and that is the amendment moved by my hon. friend who leads the official Opposition in the House (Mr. Mackenzie King). My hon. friend has based his amendment, as I read it, upon this principle, if you wish-that my right hon. friend who leads the Government is a usurper and that consequently the Government has usurped authority in this country. Now, if that is the position taken by the leader of the Opposition I am bound to say that I cannot agree with him. The right hon. the leader of the Government comes to his office in a perfectly proper way. There are plenty of precedents, not only in this country but in Great Britain as well, to support his position; and if he had evidences that the country was behind him to-day, if he had a growing majority, or at least a standing majority that supported him, then he could on good grounds claim that he was entitled to continue as head of the Government in this country. But while I do not agree with my hon. friend who leads the Opposition as to the ground of his attack upon the Government,
I agree entirely with his declaration that the Government has lost the confidence of the country; and conclusive evidence of that fact is found in the reverses the Government has suffered in the elections that have taken place within the last two years. It is true that the Government won two seats in the Maritime Provinces,-seats which they had carefully selected and very carefully handled when the election was on. They won one seat in British Columbia which my hon. friend (Mr. MacKelvie) who has recently taken his place in this House represents. But that was with a

greatly reduced majority. I would, however, point out the significant fact that the Government has lost every by-election held in the old province of Ontario; and I venture to say to-day that if my right hon. friend were to open up any seat in Western Canada and the great majority of seats in Ontario he would have the verdict that has been rendered by these other constituencies substantiated by the results. There is further evidence in the character of the appeal made, in the character of the tests that have taken place in these by-elections. Take any one of them:	Were the real
policies of the Government, the real questions before the country, discussed? I will give my right hon. friend the leader of the Government credit for this, that in most of his speeches he did come out frankly on the question of the tariff. But what of his supporters. My hon. friend from Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards), who I am sorry to say is not in his seat, took an active part in the East Elgin election; and what was the great national question that absorbed his attention? It was the salaries that were paid the officials in the Grain Growers' organization in Western Canada! That was the thing of paramount importance to my hon. friend from Frontenac. And then my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) was also there, and the great national question that absorbed that gentleman's attention was the amount of weed seed in screenings at Fort William.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I beg to take exception to the remarks of my hon. friend. He made that reference in an address in Aylmer. I reached that constituency the very day that he arrived there and consequently did not have an opportunity to make any such statement when he spoke there on that occasion.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should be very sorry
to do my hon. friend any injustice, but I read the newspaper reports, and I must give that as my evidence.


Donald Sutherland: You did not read
that in the reports.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think I can produce
evidence to that fact, but we will not bother with that just now. Now, let us come to the Maritime Provinces. What was the great question there? The great issue in the Colchester election, which returned the Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy), was the combine of the Grain Growers in Western Canada. Protection? Why, the
thing was scarcely ever discussed. But there was a promise of a post office, I believe, in the town of Truro, and there was a dim hope held out that a railway might be built through a certain section of that constituency. And then we come to the constituency of St. John, represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Wigmore), who now presides over the Department of Customs. That hon. gentleman assured the good people of St. John that if he were only returned he would see that the Government did its duty by St. John. These were the issues discussed there. But were they the great issues that are before the people of this country? Why do not my hon. friends, when they are engaged in an election, discuss the real issues before the country, their administration, their economical management of the affairs of the country, what they will do with the railways, and what my hon. friend will do when he goes to London? But we do not hear anything of these questions; we have all these other issues discussed.
But, Sir, the strongest reason there is why the amendment of the leader of the Opposition should be supported lies in this fact, that my right hon. friend who leads the Government, desires to reorganize his Government and cannot do so. Now, I do not think I am betraying any secret when I say that supporters of the Government in the country have stated that fact, that my right hon. friend desires to reorganize his Government and is waiting for an opportune moment to do so; and the opportune moment is the time when by-elections can be carried. I do not know to what extent my right hon. friend is going to reorganize his Government but I should like to know, for I have more than a passing interest in the matter. I should like to know who of the colleagues of my right hon. friend will be compelled to drink the hemlock! Who will walk the plank? I do not wish to make comparisons, but it is undoubtedly the desire of my right hon. friend to reorganize his Government. Now, Sir, a Government that is constituted in such a manner, where some are hoping to stay in and others are expecting to go out, cannot be a Government that will bring strength and courage to the management of the affairs of Canada at the present time. That constitutes the strongest possible reason why this unsettled and unsettling condition of affairs should terminate at the earliest possible moment; and for this and the various other reasons I have enumerated, I am going to support


Mr. R. C. HENDERS (Macdonald) :: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the House this afternoon on the questions that are before us, it is not my intention-
Some hon. GENTLEMEN: Louder.


Georges Henri Boivin: If hon. gentlemen will refrain from conversation there

will be no difficulty in hearing the hon. member who at present has the floor.


Richard Coe Henders: It is not my intention to offer more than a few passing remarks on the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. leader of the Agrarian party (Mr. Crerar), but there are a few points in connection with his address to which I would invite the attention of the House. Those matters of importance to which he has referred and which should receive attention at the present time may be grouped under two or three headings. The hon. gentleman referred to the address delivered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) in the city of New York a short time ago, when he pleaded for neighbourliness. It appears to me that some reason exists why at the present moment the thought and attention of the American people might be turned toward the attitude of those who are shortly to be entrusted with the government of that country, and that doubtless was the reason why the Minister of Trade and Commerce offered the suggestion which he did. Certain tariff proposals are being put forward on the other side of the line which it is hoped to put into operation in the not distant future, and in these proposals, some of us think, Canadian agriculture, our great basic industry, is receiving scant attention.
The hon. gentleman who preceded me expressed the opinion that we have little to expect, as agriculturists, in the shape of protection that would be of material advantage to us. But as I survey the proposed tariff changes of our American friends, I am fully convinced that our agricultural industry will suffer very seriously if these tariff changes are put into effect. The great wheat industry, for example, one of the main props of agriculture, will be hit very hard. The beef and live stock industry will also be subjected to a very serious handicap. Other Canadian industries will suffer; in fact, five or six at least of the contemplated duties will seriously affect agriculture in Canada. I can therefore readily understand why the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce should feel some anxiety, and why it would be advisable to urge that favourable consideration be given to Canadian representations on this most important matter.
I can also understand that should our American friends deem it to be in the interest of their country to put into effect the proposed tariff changes, it would be

very necessary for us to consider what our tariff arrangements should be in that regard. It would be necessary that we should consider whether we will allow all the citrous fruits and vegetables which our American friends grow to enter our country free of duty, while they propose to tax to the very limit very important agricultural products, the market for which we depend so largely upon the country to the south to furnish.
The next point in the speech of my hon. friend to which I wish to refer is his statement with regard to the tariff. There was one important sentence in his statement on the tariff that I was pleased to hear him give utterance to; he congratulated the leader of this House on having made a clear-cut statement as to where the Government stood on the tariff question. I am sorry that I cannot return the compliment, for the leader of the Farmer's party (Mr. Crerar) in all his addresses delivered throughout the country, and in his remarkable speech this afternoon, failed to. give to this House and to the people a clear-cut statement as to where he stands on the tariff question. But I am confident that both the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the Farmers' party will need to amend their statements along this line and tell the people definitely where they stand.
The leader of the Farmers' party states that of course there is a marked difference between a tariff for revenue and a tariff for protection, and that he stands for a tariff for revenue, while the Government stands for a tariff for protection. Well, if we are to judge these statements on their merits, that is in the light of experience, we can only reach the conclusion that a tariff for revenue must be a higher tariff than a tariff for protection. The Laurier Government went into power on a tariff for revenue, they proclaimed that that was their policy, and that they did not want any protection. And the statement is made that this Government is a protective tariff Government. Now, let us look at the results. The tariff for revenue purposes only, which the Laurier Government during the lengthy period of years that they were in office, exhausted their skill in framing required 20.18 per cent of revenue to be taken from the people on farm implements and other machinery. Turning now to the Government that is slated by the Opposition and by the Farmers' party as a high protectionist Government, I find that it has reduced the tariff on these articles to 14.61 per cent.
The previous speaker has stated that a tariff for protection cannot be a tariff for revenue, that revenue and protection are clear-cut and separate policies. If that be so, then, according to their practice, a tariff for revenue must always of necessity be a higher tariff than a tariff for protection. We do not believe in that sort of argument. We believe that it is possible to have a tariff for revenue, and at the same time to have the elements oi protection in connection with that tariff, and to have that tariff brought to such a level that it will serve the best interests of our industries while giving to us a reasonable revenue for carrying on the government of the country. This does not necessarily mean a high tariff.
I will not attempt to follow the arguments of the previous speaker at any greater length at the present time, because I believe the proper occasion for the discussion of the tariff-will be when the Budget is brought down and we have before us the fiscal policy of the Government. But, Sir, I cannot refrain from giving expression to this one thought in passing. I cannot understand by what process of reasoning the previous speaker reached the conclusion he did reach from the line of argument he advanced, that he would vote for the amendment, when the leader of the Opposition, by an entirely opposite line of argument, reached the same conclusion.
I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House for a short time to a statement made by the leader of the Opposition with regard to practically refusing to allow the business of the country to be transacted because of what he asserts to be a fact, viz.: that the Government have no mandate from the people to carry on. In connection with that I have only this to say, that as far as I am able to follow him, there is very little in his argument to commend it to the judgment and intelligence of this IJouse. This amendment is a challenge to the Government that they have no legal right to continue administering the affairs of state, that they have no mandate from the people, but that when elected their mandate was for a specific purpose and for a certain time, which purpose has been served and which time has elapsed. This is a somewhat new interpretation of the mandate given to the Government in 1917, and many of us on this side of the House believe that that mandate is capable of an entirely different interpretation.



There is no diversity of opinion as to the place the winning of the war occupied in connection with the affairs of Canada at the time this Government was elected. Viewed in the light of then important events the war was looked upon as the overmastering question that demanded our consideration; hence, due emphasis was given to it. A great issue was being fought out among the nations of the earth. A new doctrine had been proclaimed, a doctrine at entire variance with all our pre-conceived ideas of national life. That proud autocrat the German Emperor had asserted that he was a superman and that the German race was a super-race. Instead of the old belief that right is might, there was a revision of that order and the new adage was coined, "might is right." With that as their motto Germany had gone forth to assert herself and to propagate this new doctrine. The great issue was whether the influence of this new doctrine was to be the dominating influence in the world. The nations of the world grappled with this new issue. Many of them felt very keen the stress and strain to which they were subjected. The inroads which were being made upon our peace and harmony and good will by this new doctrine became such a menance to the world that life itself at the expense of the advancement of this doctrine became a matter of secondary consideration. Little wonder then that emphasis was placed on the question of the winning of the war, and that the government felt constrained to give it the highest and most prominent place in connection with governmental affairs.
But, Mr. Speaker, while that was the over-shadowing thought in connection with our national life at that time, that does not mean that it was the only thought; while that was the important work, the all important work, that does not mean that there was no other important work to be done. While many of us viewed that question as one, the satisfactory solution of which made the solution of all other luestions possible, it did not by any means follow that we did not place value on the solution of these other questions.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I rightly interpret the spirit and intention of the Union Government when they made their appeal to the country when I say that they received their mandate to carry on all the legitimate functions of Government, making them, of course, in every respect subservient to the great work of winning the war, but at the same time none the less importer. Henders.}
ant, none the less to be attended to, with perhaps one single exception. There was one question that was to be held in abeyance, one question that was not to be made an issue with the Government at this time, and the very fact that that question was particularized, was singled out and referred to as in a special class by itself, leaves us to the inference-and there is no other inference-that all other questions within the realm of governmental work were to receive fair and proper consideration.
My statement is borne out by the fact that while that one question, the tariff, was not referred to in the manifesto issued by the then leader of the Government, the supporters of the Union Government, upon appearing before the people, stated clearly and distinctly on the public platform that this question must be made an exception. I remember very well a meeting which was held in the city of Winnipeg, addressed by the present Prime Minister, by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) and by the leader of the Agrarian party (Mr. Crerar). According to the report published in the press of the addresses delivered on that occasion, these gentlemen spoke of the work of the Government, of the magnitude of the war effort, of the necessity of getting people to unite their forces in this great work. And they referred to one exception, and only one. Now, if there were other exceptions; if other matters of government were not to be dealt with, would not occasions of this kind, and the manifesto which was issued, be the times and the places where such statements should be made? But in the manifesto there is not a word
5 p.m. about it; there is just the one statement that the tariff should not be an issue during that administration, and as I say that statement was made, not in the manifesto, but in the press and on the public platforms where important addresses were delivered.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Richard Coe Henders: I hear the hon. member for Red Deer say "Hear, hear."


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I did not even whisper.


Richard Coe Henders: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Michael Clark: I forgive the hon. gentleman.


Richard Coe Henders: I "thought it was my hon. friend's voice that I heard. Not only

did gentlemen who represented the Government on public platforms refer to the matter in that light; other members who were selected and gentlemen who expected or hoped to be the supporters of the Government felt it necessary to refer to the question in that light. We have the statement published over the signature of members from the West in which they concurred in that view. Dealing with the matter of the tariff, they said:
We have now in Canada a Union Govern-^ ment, formed under the leadership of Sir Robert Borden and embracing Liberal and Independent and Labour representatives as well as Conservatives.
Then it proceeds to state that the Government's policy goes farther than the raising of money for the carrying on of the war. It says further, referring to the Government's policy:
It stands for carrying out the Military Service Act, to secure the necessary reinforcements for our soldiers, for adequate taxation of war profits and for increased taxation of incomes as necessitated by the continuance of the war. In addition to this it is pledged by the enactment of effective measures to prevent excessive profits, to the encouragement of cooperation with a view to the reduction of the cost of producing and marketing, and to the abolition of patronage by the extension of the principle of the Civil Service Act to the Out-s'de Service. This goes far in the direction set forth in the Farmers' Platform and as a war measure, I believe, sufficiently covers the ground.
Then follows this further statement:
In regard to the tariff permit me to quote from the statement recently issued in common with other Independent candidates in Western Canada. I am "prepared to forego the immediate discussion of the tariff as being, in the opinion of some, a contentious matter, if given full assurance that an adequate measure of excess profits and income taxation would be put in operation at the earliest moment and that thus a genuine mobilization of wealth would accompany conscription of men." The Government's policy meets this condition and on the basis stated I am prepared to give it my support.
The point I want to make is this, that there was only one exception made to the whole administration and operation of Government in connection with the policy and platform laid down by the Union Government at that time, and that exception was made by those men who declared that the tariff was not to be an issue during the administration of the Government in carrying on the war.	Yet, within fifteen
months, immediately after the first session of this House took place, lines of action were laid down and put into effect, and the result of that has been and is that
the men who pledged themselves at that time that the tariff was not to be an issue, took exception to the policy of the Government on the tariff, and finally separated themselves from the Government and took positions on the other side. Why? Because they broke their pledge to the Government that they would not make the tariff an issue while the Government was carrying on the war.
Furthermore let us look at the record of the Government, and judge it from its record along the lines of legislation and splendid achievement. During the early days of its history, and even down to the very last session of the House, even the Opposition never seriously entertained the idea that the Government had not a mandate to function along ordinary lines. If it be true, as the leader of the Opposition recently has asserted, that the Government has no mandate now to carry on, since when did the leader of the Opposition arrive at this conclusion? If, as the leader of the Opposition says, this Government is functioning under usurped authority, when did that usurpation take place? If he concurs that the mandate was for the winning of the war and until demobilization ceased, then what about the legislation of the last session of this House? The leader of the Opposition, supported by all his followers, made no objection to the legislation of last session; that is, no more than the ordinary opposition that would be made by members in opposition. They put forward no contention that the legislation was not proper legislation because the Government had no right to function.
The many important measures that came before this House and were crystallized into legislation, received careful consideration by all the members of this House, the Opposition amongst them. That most important Bill, the Franchise Bill, which occupied the attention of the House for weeks, which was discussed, clause by clause, and the greatest care possible given to it, in order that the Franchise Bill might be one that would be a credit to us as Canadians-that Bill, with all the labour consequent thereto, was the work, according to the theory set forth by the leader of the Opposition, of a Government which had usurped authority and had no right to function at that time. I would like to understand by what process of reasoning the leader of the Opposition reached the exact point where, he said, the mandate ceased and this Government usurped power.

Let us turn to another phase of this question. We have listened to speaker after speaker who has attempted to cite precedent after precedent in support of the position he has taken that this Government has no right to function, should resign and should receive a fresh mandate from the people. In all the cases cited there has been, to my mind, one important factor which has been kept distinctly in the back ground, and that important factor is; Who, is the responsible party, who has the right to decide, when the right time has arrived for the Government to make an appeal to the people for endorsation or otherwise?
I may not have studied history and parliamentary procedure as carefully as many other members of this House; but as far as I have been able to make investigation along these lines, I have been led to the opinion that there were certain specific causes or reasons, and that these specific causes or reasons narrowed themselves down to a very small point when that decision was required to be made. The Prime Minister, who had been called to form a Government, was elected to these responsible duties for not longer than a certain period of time; but, at any time that he felt either that he lacked the confidence or the support of the people behind him, or that there was a great issue which, he felt, was of such magnitude that the people had a right to make a pronouncement on it, he had a right to call for an election and to make an appeal to the people.
There is another reason why an election must be held. If the Opposition in the House are able, not merely to assert that there is lack of confidence in the Government but are able to show cause by educating the representatives of the people in the House on that point; if they are able to introduce a want of confidence motion that will command a majority vote of the sitting members in the House, then they have established a reason why an election should be held. It is not sufficient for the leader of the Opposition and his supporters to keep crying continually " The Government has not the confidence of the people." Such petty whining may be carried to the point where those who are carrying on the propaganda may imagine they themselves believe it, but it will have no influence when considered by an intelligent electorate.
A few representative members of the Opposition in this House have gone up and down the country crying want of confidence in the Government. They have earnestly and seriously tried to raise that cry

amongst the people, and in their vain imaginings they may have come to the conclusion that they have succeeded in doing so, as they have convinced themselves by the frequent repetition of the statement that there is lack of confidence in the Gov-ment amongst the people of the country. But that does not prove anything.
I would be the last one in this House to support the Government in hanging on to office if I felt there was any truth in these statements. I have gone carefully through a large portion of my constituency; I have conversed with electors, those who were formerly Liberal, and those who now support the Union Government, and I make this statement to-day, that I have not found two per cent of the electors in my constituency who have expressed any desire for an election. The great preponderance of opinion expressed among my people is that this Government should carry on; thac we should get further away from the unrest which is a natural outcome of the times through which we have passed in connection with the war and war conditions; that the country should have time to get back to normal conditions, and when we have done that then it will be the proper time for this Government to make an appeal to the people.
There is another point to which I wish to call attention Mr. Speaker, and that is that in all the discussion that has taken place in this House during the past few days there has not been one charge made against this Government of maladministration or of corrupt practices in any form.
If there is want of confidence there must be some cause for it. That cause would show itself in the work that is done by the Government. There would be either lack of efficiency in administration, lack of progressive legislation, or corruption in administration. Have we heard anything of this? Not one word, not one sentence, not one accusation that would place a stigma upon the Government in connection with its administration.
There is the further point of progressive legislation that is worthy of consideration by the members of this House. Has there ever been a Government in Canada that in the same period of time has put on the statute books of the country as much sane, progressive, and uniformly good legislation as the present Government. It might be well to call the attention to a few of the important measures that have received favourable consideration, but as my time is passing, and I have spoken much longer

than I had intended, I will leave that for some other time.
The Government, I take it, is challenged, and that challenge will have to be settled one way or the other. My reasoning leads me to only one conclusion, viz; that I must vote against the amendment. May I call attention to a particular matter that I think should have the thought and attention of the Government at the present time. If there is one question that is agitating the minds of Western farmers at the present time more than any other, it is that of the handling of their wheat products. Scarcely a day passes that we do not see in some paper an item regarding the handling of the wheat crop, the Canada Wheat Board, Wheat pools, or a reference to some similar phase of the grain question. I believe it can be said without exaggeration that this is the question of paramount importance in Western Canada to-day. Rumours are rife, charges and counter-charges of wrongdoing are in the air, and the result is that the minds of the Western producers are agitated abnormally on this question.
The dismissal of the Canada Wheat Board meant that the business of handling our wheat reverted back to the Grain Exchange, to the old system of grain handling. Some of us were seriously disappointed when that reversion took place. In the appointment of the Wheat Board we felt that the Government had gone a long way towards solving this, one of the most important and intricate problems affecting the greatest industry of Canada. Of course, there were those who favoured the old system, and they were not slow in making their influence felt. Representatives of the Exchange found their way to this House purporting to give out information as to the difficulty that must accrue from this new system of handling our grain. They spoke of the general shortage of world supply and assured us that there was nothing to fear, that in any case the producers of grain were bound to receive a remunerative price for their product. It was stated that an abnormal price might be expected, and the people were led to believe that they might look for even $4 of $5 per bushel wheat.
What took place? The Grain Exchange began to function. In a very short time the price of wheat began to drop. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to point out why these prices dropped. I know that large bodies of responsible farmers considered that the grain exchanges were to blame. I do know that numbers of
producers think that the short selling on the grain exchanges resulted in the lowering of prices. This lowering of price was instrumental in inducing a great many farmers to hold their wheat. They believed if they kept that wheat in the elevators they would eventually secure a higher price.
Under the rules and regulations of the Grain Act, when grain is stored in the elevators, it is well known to producers that the elevator companies are nothing more or less than storage companies. They have no right to dispose of that grain without the consent of the producer. It was therefore reasonable for them to expect that by their holding this grain out of the market they would create a demand for wheat which would at least have the effect of raising the price or of increasing its market value. But what did we find? We found that the producers by holding this grain did not secure the object they had in view, did not succeed in keeping it off the market and therefore that the purpose they had in view, by which they hoped to stabilize the price was entirely thwarted by the manipulation of the grain exchanges.
I am led to this belief by the statements made by a responsible minister of the Crown in Saskatchewan. This minister ought to know what he is talking about. He is closely indentified with both country and terminal elevators. His statement is that a lot of this grain to which I have referred was shipped from the company elevators and also from the public terminal elevators without the permission of the producers. This grain was thrown on the market and sold, and this act was the means of depressing the market and bringing about the conditions to which I have just now referred.
A statement of this kind made by such a responsible party ought to be sufficient in itself to call forth from this Government a very careful investigation as to its truth or falsity. If it is true that we have country elevators taking the wheat of the farmer, selling it without permission, utilizing the money, and then when the farmer does sell, possibly charging him storage and interest right up to date, it is a serious state of affairs and I can only repeat that this statement was made by a responsible minister of the Crown in Saskatchewan. It should be investigated very thoroughly by the Government.
Another point I should like to bring to your attention is this. I am credibly informed that the North West Grain Dealers' Association sends out daily state-

proper finding on the problem they themselves are attempting to solve. They will have my co-operation and support if they can propose a method which will bring about the desired result. I am sorry to have occupied so much of the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I really could riot deal with the subject within any shorter space.
Mr. HENRI E. LAVIGUEUR (Quebec County) : Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative on every member of this House to clearly express his views on the important amendment which has been presented by the hon. leader of the Oppo-tion (Mr. Mackenzie King). But before doing so I wish to extend my congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) upon his elevation to his present high position, surely an evidence of the confidence which the supporters of the Government must have had in him. This promotion is undoubtedly due to his great ability, his great talents, and his great energy. I also wish to tender my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. Both these gentlemen certainly fulfilled the important duty entrusted to them with great ability and acquitted themselves in a manner that is a credit to themselves and their constituents.	'
It was a matter of great regret that the Government saw fit to depart from the old and well-established custom of having the Address moved and seconded in both the official languages of the country. It is certainly to be deplored, Mr. Speaker, that among the supporters of the Government there could not be found at least one hon. gentleman capable of moving or seconding the Address in the French language.
As I have already said, the amendment before us is of great importance and should receive the approbation of the majority of the members in this House, as it certainly has the approbation of the great majority of the Canadian electors. With the exception of the members of the Cabinet and their supporters, the amendment without doubt has the support of the country at large. Throughout the country the demand is everywhere heard for1 a general election. All classes and communities are calling for it. The consumers, the labouring classes, the returned soldiers, the farmers-and I can speak for the farmers because I represent one of the largest agricultural counties in the province of Quebec-are all urging a general 
election. The members of the Opposition are ready for a general election. We are not afraid to face our electors, we are not afraid to discuss the Government's policies; we are ready to meet the members of the Government, or their supporters in the province of Quebec or anywhere else. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why I shall with great pleasure support the amendment which is now before the House.
Lately a great many compliments have been bestowed on the province of Quebec. The feeling which has existed largely since the general election of 1917 seems to have changed, if we are to judge by the kind words and bouquets which are being lavished on my province. We are delighted to see this change of heart, but we would appreciate it much more if it were supplemented by sincerity of purpose on the part of the Government. I refer more particularly to the capital of my province, the city of Quebec, which has been so unjustly treated. I was delighted to read in the newspapers a few months ago the speeches made by the Prime Minister in the province of Quebec in which he expressed his desire to see her united with the other provinces. I was also very much pleased to hear the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), one of the most aggressive members on the Government side against the province of Quebec, throw us some bouquets a few days ago. But, as I have already stated, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec are not looking for bouquets or kind words; they are looking for the fulfilment of the solemn written obligations of the Government towards the city of Quebec.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister's frequently expressed desire to treat the province of Quebec on an eaual footing with the other provinces, but it would be more to the purpose if he would at once give instructions to the proper departments of his Government to render justice to the city of Quebec, for then we would have an earnest of his solicitude for our so-called isolation. We are not asking for special favours. The eve of a general election is not the time for the citizens of Quebec to get down on their knees. We are only asking for the performance of what has been promised to the city of Quebec under solemn written contracts. We are asking the Government to fulfil their pledge to give us proper equipment for the Transcontinental railway; we are asking the Government to construct the long-pro-

mised and long-deferred docks and grain elevators; we are asking the Government to resume the works on the St. Charles river, on which nearly $2,000,000 have already been expended, and which works are now lying idle and useless. The late Minister of Public Works, Mr. Carvell, stated in 1919 that the work would be proceeded with, and he admitted that unless it were carried to completion the $1,750,000 already expended would be simply wasted. That work was suspended without any reason whatever, as I can prove to this House at any time by official documents. If it is really the intention of the Prime Minister to treat my province on an equal footing with any other part of the Dominion, I will ask him to order those works to be procedeed with immediately, for the money has been already voted for them, and they have been interrupted unjustly and without any reason whatever.
I would also ask the Government to fulfil their contract to complete workshops and put up the main building which has been agreed upon for the Transcontinental railway. The city sacrificed the Champlain market property, valued at over $3,000,000, on the strength of a written contract signed by the Federal Government and the city, under which the Government agreed to build workshops of the same size and type as those erected in Winnipeg-shops equipped for building cars and locomotives and giving employment to four or five thousand workmen, whereas the present shops are only employing about seven hundred. I would ask the right hon. the Prime Minister to see that this part of the contract is fulfilled without further delay.
I would also ask the Prime Minister, now that he has so much love for the citizens of Quebec, to see that justice is done to those people of that province who subscribed to stocks in the Great Northern and Lake St. John Railways and who have not been able to settle their claims with the Government, although numbers of petitions and demands have been made during the last few years upon the Government with a view to reimbursing those citizens who subscribed over $,650,000 in connection with those two railways. When the majority shareholders are paid the full amount of their shares, the minority shareholders also should be reimbursed.
Let me mention one or two of the chief reasons why the citizens of Quebec subscribed to stocks in these companies. In
respect of $200,000 worth of stock subscribed to the Great Northern Company, that company agreed to erect their repair shops in Limoilou. But what has happened, Mr. Speaker? The men employed at Limoilou have been transferred to the St. Malo shops. If it is the intention of the Government to dispense with the shops at Limoilou, why do they not-and I am pleased to see the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) in his seat-reimburse the city of Quebec for the $200,000 subscribed by its citizens in order that they might have the shops at Limoilou? Certainly this should be done if the contract in respect to these shops is to be cancelled by the Government.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my remarks this afternoon, I stated that the work on the St. Charles river was interrupted without any valid reasons being offered. I wish, with your permission, Sir, to give to the House a certain declaration made in the House of Commons by Mr. Carvell, then Minister of Public Works, as reported in Hansard of May 13, 1919. Mr. Carvell's declaration was made in reply to this interpellation of the hon. member for Lotbiniere:


Mr. VTBN:: Will the minister tell us if it is his intention to finish up the damming of the St. Charles river at Quebec?


Mr.   QAKVELL@: There is no vote in the Ks-timates for that. The trouble with the St. Charles river proposition at Quebec is a very simple one. The scheme is to construct a clam across the mouth of the river where it empties into the St. Lawrence. There were to be two entrances from the St. Lawrence up into the basins of the St. Charles river. That was to create practically a lake 12 or 14 feet higher than the ordinary level of the river at low tide and, to some extent, higher than the level would be at high tide. The sewage of at least three-quarters of the city of Quebec enters into the St. Charles river above the location of this dam and before the work was started an agreement was made with the city of Quebec by which they were to provide for, the sewage. There was to be a big trunk sewer constructed by which the sewage would be emptied into the St. Lawrence river around and below the dam at the mouth of the St. Charles. It will cost probably $2,000,000. I suppose they had some trouble about financing it during the war but no attempt has been made to take care of that sewage. They have refused to go on with the work until something is done about the sewage. If you build a dam across the St. Charles river and dump the sewage of 75,000 or 80,000 people into the river for a year you will have a pest house ; you could not live alongside of it.

I would not take the responsibility of consenting to go on with the work until something was done about the sewage. With this, I take the same ground that I have taken in regard to St. John and other places. We have about $1,750,000 invested in the St. Charles river work at the present time and it will take another $1,000,000 to finish it. The money we have expended is absolutely lost until the work is completed but I cannot go on and complete it until something is done to protect the health of the city of Quebec.
It will be of interest to the members of this House to know the exact terms of the contract entered into between the city of Quebec and the Federal Government in regard to the work on the St. Charles river, regarding which work Mr. Carvell stated that the city had not fulfilled its obligations and that, therefore, the Government had not gone on with the work. With your permission, Sir, I will read the contract which was entered into between the Government and the city of Quebec:
Before Charles Juge Baillairgeon. Public Notary for the Province of Quebec, residing and practising in the said City of Quebec Came and appeared:
His Majesty King George V, represented by the Honourable Frederick Debartzch Monk, Minister of the Public Works of the Dominion of Canada, the said Honourable F. D. Monk hereto represented by Mr. A. R. Deeary, Engineer of the Department of Public Works, for the district of Quebec, according to a procuration signed by the Honourable F. D. Monk, in Ottawa, dated May 2nd, 1919, annexed to the minute of these presents after having been recognized and signed by the said Mr. A. R. Decary in the presence of the undersigned Notary.
And the City of Quebec, represented by His Worship Mayor Napoleon Drouin, duly authorized for the purpose hereof by a resolution of the City Council of Quebec, at a meeting held on April 19th, 1912-; of which a certified copy is annexed to the minutes of the present contract after having been signed by Mr. Napoleon Drouin, in the presence of the undersigned Notary, part of the second part,

Which said parties have agreed and covenanted as follows: to wit;
Whereas the party of the first part proposes to execute certain works of damming and dredging in the river St. Charles,
Whereas part of the actual sewerage system of the City of Quebec actually discharges in the said river St. Charles,
Whereas the works of dredging and damming in the river St. Charles, if executed, will consequently interfere with the proper discharge of sewers actually deversing in the said river;
Whereas it has been agreed between the parties that a contract would be signed in virtue whereof the said city of Quebec will save the Government of the Dominion of Canada harmless against any claims that rfiay be made with regard to the said sewers.
In consequence, it is by these presents agreed and covenanted as follows:-
1. The party of the second part will, if the party of the first part executes the proposed damming and dredging works in the city of Quebec, save the Government harmless against any claim whatever that may be made in con-
nection with the sewerage system actually deversing in the river St. Charles, or which may deverse in the said river, which sewers are under control of the said City of Quebec.
2. The Government of the Dominion of Canada on the other part will allow the city of Quebec, if said works are carried out in the river St. Charles, permission to discharge the sewers outside, through and at large of the proposed damming works on the said river, towards the St. Lawrence river, permission extending on all sewers which the city will have to construct to regulate the said sewerage system.
Done and Executed in Quebec, under the notarial number six hundred and twenty-nine of the minutes of the undersigned Notary.
In Testimony Whereof the appearers have signed on the fourth day of June of the year nineteen hundred and twelve in the presence of the said Notary, after due reading.
(Signed)



NAP. DROUIN.


[Stage Direction]
I have read this contract so that there will be no misunderstanding regarding what was agreed to between the Dominion Government and the city of Quebec. The contract is nothing more and nothing less than that if the Government does the work, the city of Quebec will not hold the Government responsible for any damage which may be caused to the sewers. Therefore, when I state that the work on the St. Charles river at Quebes has been interrupted without any valid reason, I think you will admit, Sir, that my contention, which is that of the citizens of Quebec, is perfectly right. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) really has, as is stated, a special place in his heart for the citizens of Quebec, he should prove his good faith, not by throwing bouquets to the people of Quebec but by prompt action in doing justice to the citizens of the province and more particularly of the city of Quebec, who seem to have been boycotted by this Government in the past few years.
Besides the claims I enumerated this afternoon, the citizens of the city of Quebec have made another very important claim on the Government. During the riots in the city of Quebec, four most peaceable citizens were killed by the soldiers, who had taken control of the city by order of the Government, issued through the Militia Department. The .Riot Act had never been read in the city before the shooting took place, and the mayor of Quebec, which position I had the honour of occupying at that time, had never asked the military powers to take control of the city, but we asked them to protect their own buildings in case the city police were not able to do so.

You, Mr. Speaker, and the citizens of Canada, are familiar with what occurred during the riots, and the unfortunate consequences. I repeat, four perfectly innocent citizens were killed by the soldiers, and a few others were badly injured for life. The parents of the slain, as well as the injured, have made claims on the Government, but their demands have received no consideration. If the Prime Minister really has so warm a spot in his heart for the citizens of Quebec, is not this a good time to prove his sincerity by settling these claims of the victims, and all the other claims which I have set forth this afternoon and evening in my remarks.
Mr. GEORGE BRECKEN NICHOLSON (East Algoma) :: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset associate myself with the remarks that have been made by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House in commendation of the speeches delivered by the mover and the seconder of the resolution now before the House. May I at the same time extend my personal congratulations to my right hon. leader, the Prime Minister, on his elevation to the highest office in the gift and service of the Canadian people. I should like to be permitted to go a little further and say that I think the House and the country are to be congratulated on the fact that when our great Prime Minister and leader, Sir Robert Borden, who piloted the affairs of this country during the whole period of the war, found that owing to a physical breakdown it was necessary for him to resign, there was found within the Government itself a man whose qualities of heart and mind so eminently fitted him to take up the reins of office and carry on from the point where Sir Robert left off.
I do not think the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lavigueur) will feel that I am at all discourteous if I do not attempt to follow him in the remarks he has made to the House this afternoon and evening. The first part of his remarks followed the general line that has been taken by members on the Opposition side of the House during the whole debate, while the latter part dealt with a subject apparently in dispute betwen the city of Quebec and the Government, of which I have no knowledge and am consequently unable to speak.
Coming to the debate itself, I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that in its course it has blazed out for itself a trail that makes it take a unique place in
the annals of Parliamentary debate of a similar character in this country. The House has been in session almost two weeks. We have had placed in our hands by His Excellency the Governor General a legislative programme of some importance, notwithstanding the remarks made by my hon. friend the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) this afternoon. We were charged also with the responsibility of scrutinizing the record of the Government in the past and their programme for the future. In a word, we had before us in review the whole record of the Government, both in its administrative and legislative capacities. In such a review I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that it is usually the practice of the Opposition to take some part. As a matter of fact,
I will go further and say that the debate on the Address is looked upon as the opportunity of the Opposition to scrutinize every act of the Government, administrative and legislative. It is looked upon as their opportunity to dig into and pry up, if they can, any weak spot in the administrative or legislative record of the Government.
But what has happened in this debate? It is now well on in its second week, and we have seen one hon. member after another on the opposite side of the House, from the leader of the Opposition down, rise in his place and talk about every purely academic subject under the sun rather than the Address of His Excellency the Governor General. There are two reasons for that. In the first place-and I think this is a matter upon which the House and the country can legitimately congratulate itself-the record of the Government has been such that the Opposition cannot, dig and delve as they may, put their finger on one single act of the Government and say: This is something you should not have done. Nor can they put their finger on one single proposal of the Government and say: This is something you should not do.


Mr. JACOBS:: What about the marine policy of the Government?


George Brecken Nicholson: If my hon. friend has any fault to find with the marine policy of the Government, it will be in order for him when he speaks in this debate to deal with that subject, but so far, his colleagues who have spoken have avoided anything in the nature of criticism of any part of the Government's policy.
There is another reason. You know, Sir, it is not a difficult matter for any dema-

gogue to indulge in destructive criticism, and to utter all sorts of declamations; but when it comes to a question of offering constructive criticism or helpful suggestions there requires to be something in the nature of unanimity of opinion amongst those who offer such criticism and suggestions. And for the leader of the Opposition to undertake to secure unanimity of opinion amongst his followers on any subject of public importance in this country at the present time, would create a situation that would find a fitting parallel only in the chaotic circumstances surrounding the tower of Babel. He simply could not unite his followers on any single subject of prime importance before the country, and the hon. gentleman knows it.
There is one other reason why the speech from the Throne and matters of a similar character have been studiously avoided. The leader of the Opposition and his followers do not want to discuss anything in the nature of a real and vital issue to-day. It is not in keeping with the arrangement that has been so studiously worked up between my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). Notwithstanding all this, however, the debate has served some useful purpose. In the first place, it has shown both to this House and to the country the opposition to this Government in all its naked impotence.
Just analyze the situation for a moment. We heard the hon. member for Marquette this afternoon say that this country was faced with problems of supreme importance, problems that would require the attention of all thinking men if they were to be properly solved. Well, then, what has been the contribution of the Opposition? They have offered nothing but lifeless, meaningless opposition, the still-born product of the leader of the Opposition's political councils, capable of nothing but complete bankruptcy in statesmanship. He leads what is only an apology for what was once a great political party. Mr. Speaker, the debate has served another purpose: it has given an opportunity to the leader of the Opposition-I regret exceedingly he is not in his place


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad.


George Brecken Nicholson: Well, before I sit
down it is my intention to address some definitely pointed remarks to the hon. gentleman's position and record. I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, that the debate

has given to the leader of the Opposition an opportunity to occupy in the centre of the stage what would seem to be his favourite position, that of perhaps the greatest example of bloodless neutrality that this generation has produced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Brecken Nicholson: Let us just for a
moment review the programme of legislation submitted to the House. The first item deals with unemployment in this country. Now, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Marquette said this afternoon, and notwithstanding the indifference with which that subject has been treated in the House the question of unemployment, I conceive, is of some importance; and every rightthinking man in this country must realize that our social conditions are not going tc be what they should be until measures are found to cope with the unemployment situation. The leader of the Opposition, theoretically, when he is in his study writing books, is supposed to know something about the workingman's problems. But when he comes on the floor of the House of Commons and a great proposition is before him, where does he stand?


An hon. MEMBER:: He stands right.


George Brecken Nicholson: He says, Mr. Speaker, in so many words: "I wash my hands entirely of the question of unemployment. I am not interested in whether the workingman is employed or not; I am neutral." That is the position he takes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


George Brecken Nicholson: Now, the next question submitted to the House in the speech from the Throne is unemployment insurance and old age pensions. This is a subject of prime importance notwithstanding what has been said to the contrary. It is a difficult problem. Every English-speaking country in the world is grappling with the problem of unemployment insurance and old age pensions, and every Englishspeaking country in the world will continue to grapple with it until it is properly solved. This Parliament has been charged with the responsibility of taking hold of that problem and dealing with it.
My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), for whose opinion I have the very highest regard, said in his speech that he hoped this Government and this Parliament would not press the matter of unemployment insurance and old age pen-

sions. I take exactly the reverse position.
I hope that this Government and this House will press the question. Because it is very difficult is one reason why we should take hold of it and try to find a proper solution for it. And, Sir, I will go so far as to say that unless some system can be devised that will remove from the honest workingmen the spectre of the possibility that their families may suffer because they cannot obtain work, then our whole social system will go to pieces. I say again that this is a difficult problem, and it will require the attention of earnest, virile men.
Where does the leader of the Opposition stand with regard to this matter? Again, he virtually says, "I am neutral when it comes to a question of unemployment insurance and old age pensions."
The next item in the speech from the Throne is the question of Canada's position in the League of Nations and of a Court of International Justice. But surely, says the leader of the Opposition, this is going too far. Now, the whole question of the League of Nations and the setting up of a Court of International Justice has arisen out of the war, and it is because the steel has gone to the hearts and souls of millions of people all over the civilized world that there is. a suggestion that we might possibly set up a work of League of Nations and should have a Court of International Justice. But the hon. gentleman says: "Have I not made it absolutely manifest that I have no interest in the war? Why should I have anything to do with a League of Nations or a Court of International Justice?"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Brecken Nicholson: He says again: '1 am a neutral."


An hon. MEMBER:: Clever.


An hon. MEMBER:: You do not like that.


George Brecken Nicholson: The next point is the tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Brecken Nicholson: Now, hon. gentlemen need not get excited; it is not my intention to discuss the tariff in detail.


Mr. DUFF:: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: I will say, however,
that the tariff is the most vital problem of domestic policy before the country today.


Michael Clark: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: "Hear,hear," says my hon. friend from Red Deer. Well, I appreciate his "hear, hear," because there is not a man in this House or out of it who knows the hon. member but knows that he is absolutely sincere in the position he takes on the tariff; and whether we agree with him, or disagree, we are ready and willing to accord him what is due to every honest man in the way of credit for a definite stand on any question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Explain the Government's position on the tariff.


George Brecken Nicholson: I say, Mr. Speaker, that until this country knows definitely what its future will be with regard to the tariff we shall not have stable business conditions. I heard my hon. friend from Marquette say this afternoon, in discussing the present commercial and business situation that there is uneasiness amongst the business men. Well, there will be uneasiness until they know once for all whether their busnesses will be subjected to the undue and unfair competition of the great industries to the south of us and the cheap labour of the whole outside world. But where does the leader of the Opposition stand with regard to the tariff? If I asked you, Mr. Speaker, where he stood you might answer the question perhaps by saying it depended upon where he happened to be at a particular time-because he has stood at every point of the compass on the question of the tariff in the last twelve months, and his party has occupied exactly the same position. The thing they are determined to avoid, if avoid they can, is the discussion of the concrete issue of the tariff either in this House or out of it. But side step it as they may they will be brought face to face with the straight issue of the tariff before this session comes to an end. The one thing that the leader of the Opposition and his followers have discussed during the present debate is the question of mandates.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: Hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear." Well I am going to discuss that question purely from my own standpoint. I take it that each member can speak for himself, and for himself alone, when it comes to the question of mandates. I got my mandate from the people of East Algoma, the people amongst whom I have had the privilege of living and working during the last thirty-five years.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have had it too long.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am answerable to the people of East Algoma, and I- am not going to be dictated to by the leader of the Opposition, or anyone else as to how I am going to exercise that mandate. But the leader of the Opposition sets himself up fci this House as the supreme arbiter of the mandate of every other member. ' Where did the hon. gentleman get that right? You will recall, Sir, that in 1917 he went up into the riding of North York, his native county, and made a moving appeal to the people there to give him a mandate, but they literally kicked him out of the county. In 1919 he thought he saw an opportunity of being elected in another county in his own province. There was a door standing partly open and he made an effort to get in through that door but the people of the county, knowing his record as they did, slammed the door in his face and he could not get a mandate there. Then along towards the autumn of 1919 the people of Prince, P.E.I., woke up one morning and found a basket on their door-step, and with that generosity characteristic of the people of my native province they said "We will take the poor foundling in and give it shelter until it can be determined whether it has any legitimate political parentage or not." That, Mr. Speaker, is where the leader of the Opposition got his mandate and yet he comes into this House and says to me and every other member who came here by virtue-*


An hon. MEMBER:: By virtue of the War Times Election Act.


George Brecken Nicholson: *-of the mandate of our constituents. You have no right to be where you are."


An hon. MEMBER:: The people are getting uneasy.


George Brecken Nicholson: As I said a moment ago, with that charity that all decent men should accord to a poor outcast, I am ready to accord the leader of the Opposition the right and the privilege of speaking for his foster political parents the people of Prince Edward Island, but I am not willing to accord to him the right to speak for the people of Algoma. The leader of the Opposition said in his speech that there was unrest throughout the country-and the statement was repeated by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar)- unrest amongst the business men, unrest amongst returned soldiers. What has been the eon-

tribution of the leader of the Opposition and his friend towards the allaying of the unrest? Let us get down to one concrete case. What suggestion has the leader of the Opposition put forward that will have for its effect the allaying of the unrest amongst returned soldiers?


Samuel William Jacobs: Turning the-Government out.


George Brecken Nicholson: I anticipated that
reply. Hon. members opposite say, "Turn the Government out."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that I have struck a responsive chord in the hearts of my friends opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: Just listen to them cheer in a minute or two. What happens when the Government is turned out?


An hon. MEMBER:: We will be in
power.


George Brecken Nicholson: The leader of the Opposition made this statement up in Peterborough a short time ago:
Turn the Meighen Government out and the! it will be the duty of His Excellency the Gov ernor General to send for the Leader of the Opposition to form a Government.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: If you will pardon me a slang phrase, can you beat that-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, on.


An hon. MEMBER:: We can beat you.


George Brecken Nicholson: -as a means of allaying unrest amongst the returned soldiers in this country, to bring about a situation that would make it necessary for His Excellency the Governor General to send for the leader of the Opposition to form a Government? Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be unduly severe-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Brecken Nicholson: Hon. gentlemen may laugh but I will tell them this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must appeal to hon. gentlemen to observe some semblance of decorum in debate. Doubtless the hon. member for East Algoma would be willing to concede the privilege to any hon. gentleman who so desires, of rising in his place and asking a question in proper form, but I submit that debate can-

not be conducted with a running fire of comment such as has occurred during the last few moments.


George Brecken Nicholson: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, your desire to maintain the decorum of the House, but I can assure you that the hilarity of hon. gentlemen opposite gives me very great pleasure. I am glad to see the leader of the Opposition now taking his seat and, with your permission, Sir, I will repeat in his presence what I said a few moments ago.


Mr. ARCH AMB  AULT@: Say it in
French.


An hon. MEMBER:: Dispense.


George Brecken Nicholson: The leader of the Opposition has suggested that as a means of allaying unrest amongst the returned soldiers in this country, a situation should be brought about that would make it necessary for His Excellency the Governor General to send for him (Mr. King) to form a Government and become Prime Minister in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: Let me repeat what I said a few moments ago. I do not wish to be unduly severe, but I say this-and I say it looking straight in the eye of the leader of the Opposition and I ask his supporters to take it to heart- the mere suggestion that the hon. the leader of the Opposition should ever be called upon to occupy the position of Prime Minister or any other office of a public character that would bring him into contact with the interests of the returned soldiers is a flagrant insult to every man who put the uniform on during the war and fought for his country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame, shame.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am certain that the hon. member for East Algoma will, on reflection, realize that his last remark could not properly be made having regard to the proper conduct of debate, and that he should withdraw it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I have very great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in withdrawing the remark if it is unparliamentary. I appreciate the fact that, faced with such a situation, any red blooded man in this country who stood behind and beside the men who fought for us overseas would have very great difficulty in finding parliamentary language in which to express himself.


Mr. FAFARD:: You would not stand very long beside me, anyway.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Coward.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish the House to realize that to the best of its ability the Chair will endeavour to preserve the proper decorum of debate; by no means can the debate be conducted from the seats.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the fact that it is not pleasant for hon. gentlemen opposite to hear these things. But I will just say this in conclusion in regard to this matter: They may squirm as they like


William Duff: Order, order.


George Brecken Nicholson: -but the fathers
and mothers of the boys who fought overseas and the great mass of the public who stood behind those boys will not forget these things, whether hon. members do or not.


William Duff: Bunkum, rot.


George Brecken Nicholson: Now, Mr. Speaker,
I will leave the matter right there.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have gone too far.


George Brecken Nicholson: We have heard during this debate that we should have an election. I do not know if there is anything we need worry about in that regard, for we are going to have an election.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: You will never come back.


George Brecken Nicholson: All right; as I said a moment ago I am in the hands of my constituents, and I am perfectly willing-


An hon. MEMBER:: They will choke you.


George Brecken Nicholson: and I am perfectly willing to abide by their verdict. But, Mr. Speaker, I have the right that every hon. member has, and that the people have- the right to know what is going to be decided at the election. What are the issues that will be laid before the people? I have heard it stated in this debate that hon. gentlemen directly opposite have no policy. But that is a mistake; they have a policy for every parish, for every constituency, and for every province; and above and beyond all that they have one main policy: to make such an appeal to the people in the various parts of the Dominion that they may come back here

with just sufficient following to join up with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and his party and thus control the destinies of this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a good combination.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is the policy. Now, under those circumstances where should we look for the policy that is likely to dominate if that situation eventuates? Is it to be expected that the vacillating group of men who cannot agree among themselves five minutes at a time on anything are going to be the dominant partner in the combination that is to govern this country? Not for one moment. It is that group led by the hon. member for Marquette and supported by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that will dominate the policy of the holy alliance which is to be consummated after the next general election.
Now, we come to this point-what is their policy, and whom do they represent? Sometimes they are styled the Agrarian party, sometimes they are styled the Farmers' party, and sometimes they style themselves the Progressive party. A greater misuse of terms could not possibly be suggested than any one of the three. What are they and who are they? They are here as the accredited representatives of the greatest corporation that ever came into existence in this country-the United Grain Growers' Company. That is who they are and that is what they are here for. I have proof of it under my hand.


Joseph Archambault: File the proof.


George Brecken Nicholson: This is what the vice president of the United Grain Growers' Company has to say on the subject:
Under the system we propose, men are not elected as representatives in the sense heretofore understood. They will go to Parliament as our delegates

These are not my words, they are the words of the vice president of the United Grain Growers' Company. He says:
They will go to Parliament as our delegates, to carry out our instructions.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my hon. friend who made that statement?


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Woods, vice
president of the United Grain Growers' Company.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, may I be
permitted to say that Mr. Woods has no connection whatever with the United Grain Growers' company.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am
ready to admit, that it would be exceedingly difficult for any man to say just who is associated with the United Grain Growers' Company and who is not. But I may just as well give this to the House right here since my hon. friend has raised the question-In 1918 the general manager of the United Grain Growers' Company, Mr. Rice Jones- am I right?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


George Brecken Nicholson: -came before a committee of this House, brought here by gentlemen associated with the United Grain Growers. He was asked the question, whether this corporation had any subsidiaries. He sat back in his chair in blank amazement. Any subsidiaries! Can it be expected that any ordinary man would carry around under, his cranial bones sufficient information to say offhand what the subsidiaries of the United Grain Growers' company were? Mr. Woods, if not the vice President of the United Grain Growers' Company, is president of the Alberta Grain Growers' company which is closely identified and affiliated with the United Grain Growers' company. These are Mr. Woods' words, and let me repeat them:
They will go to Parliament as our delegates to carry out our instructions. We will retain complete control by means of the recall, or advance resignation, &c.
That is just exactly what this party is that sometimes calls itself the Farmers' party, sometimes the Agrarian party, and sometimes the Progressive party; and that is why it is here.


An hon. MEMBER:: National, Liberal
Conservative.


George Brecken Nicholson: I said a moment ago that you could not suggest a more violent misuse of terms than those titles. What has been their attitude towards the farmers of this country? What has been the attitude of the hon. member for Marquette, their leader, towards the farmers of this country? The hon. gentleman was Minister of Agriculture for at least a year and a half at a period when every government in Canada, provincial and federal, backed by the whole body of public opinion was bending its energies to increase production, when the Dominion treasury, one might say, was wide open for the hon. gentleman to use its funds in any way that would stimulate our agricultural production. Can he point to one single Act that passed

through this House at his suggestion to improve the condition of our farmers? Not one single act or suggestion. We are told that the hon. gentleman did have something to do with a plan by which the elevators at the head of the Lakes were permitted to use poisonous seeds in the manufacture of stock food for Ontario farmers.
Now, let us go one step further with regard to the position of this particular party concerning the farming industry of this country. Anyone who has given the question thought will agree that you cannot have stable agricultural conditions if you produce grain and nothing else; you must have mixed farming. How are you going to bring that about? By making it possible for farmers who are real farmers to get an abundant supply of stock foods- the by-products of the milling industry- at reasonable prices. What is the .attitude of this organization towards the milling industry? Members of the House will recall that when this close corporation agreement was entered into between the two wings of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition the Toronto Globe had something to do with it; they put an asset into the pool by turning over to this organization in Western Canada their western correspondent, Mr. Norman Lambert, to act as secretary and general publicity manager for the group. Anyone who has had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Lambert and discussing economic problems with him will agree that he is a clear-headed man of outstanding ability. Mr. Lambert is managing with a very considerable degree of skill the publicity campaign for the hon. gentlemen who call themselves the Agrarian party. Let me quote from an article contributed by Mr. Lambert to an Eastern paper on the subject of the tariff. I will not read the whole of it; I will deal with [DOT] only one vital point. Mr. Lambert, discussing the question of the manufacture of macaroni in this country and whether it should be imported, says:
Prior to 1910 there was one macaroni factory in Quebec and one in Manitoba and Canada imported a major portion of the macaroni consumed. Since that time there has been established an additional factory in Alberta and a third factory in Ontario-
It was bad enough that we should establish factories in Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec to employ Canadian workmen in the manufacture of a food product for this country; but here is the pinch:
-using as their raw material for the manufacture of macaroni, flour produced from Canadian wheat.
'"Flour produced from Canadian wheat;" that is the sting in the thing so far as the United Grain Growers are concerned. Why should there be any opposition on the part of men who profess to be the friends of the farmers to the milling of wheat in Canada? Well, there is just this reason for it; the milling industry in Canada is the most serious competitor that the United Grain Growers of Alberta have. They buy a lot of wheat and they manufacture it into flour and mill feeds. Every bushel of wheat they buy is a bushel of wheat which the Grain Growers cannot buy and upon which they cannot make fat overages at the head of the Lakes; a bushel of wheat that they cannot ship out of the country through one of their subsidiaries, the Export Company of New York or the Export Company of Canada, and thus secure fat profits. That is why they are opposed to the milling industry; yet they 9 p.m. have the presumption to go before the people and say that they are the friends of the farming industry.
"But," they say, "look at the commercial business we are doing amongst the farmers; look at what we are doing for these men in Western Canada by getting them all the things they require-feed, clothing, machinery, fuel, and everything else." Well, just let us look at it. The manager of United Grain Growers, Limited, gave valuable evidence before a Committee of this House,-evidence which it is worth any hon. gentleman's while to read. I will not delay the House by going over very much of it, but here the question of flour comes in again:	My hon. friend from Marquette
(Mr. Crerar) and other hon. gentlemen, going up and down the country in their campaign of abuse against other business men, have held up the millers as an institution that was bleeding the people white by the profits they were taking. In the year for which I am going to give you some figures, the Ogilvie Milling Company, the Western Canada Flour Milling Company, the Lake of the Woods Milling Company and the Maple Leaf Milling Company made profits ranging from 9 to 11 i cents a barrel on the flour they produced, and they did all the work of manufacturing that product. The United Grain Growers, Limited, carry on a sort of letter order business. They write a letter to some milling company and ask them to forward a car of flour to some farmer or group of farmers with draft attached to bill of lading. In this way they handled, without



the cost to them of a single cent, something over a million dollars' worth of flour, and they collected from the farmer between eighty cents and one dollar a barrel as their rake-off for doing it.
I shall not go over the whole list, but let me come down to the question of agricultural implements. The whole farming community, particularly in Western Canada, is suffering because of the high cost of their farming implements. The |United Grain Growers, Limited, handle a lot of farming implements, and in the year for which Mr. Riee-Jones gave the figures, on every $100 worth of farming implements they sold to the western grain growers, they collected a profit for themselves of $21.06. Mr. Rice-Jones was asked: Do they give the farmers any service by way of time within which to pay for these goods? The reply was, in effect: "Nothing in the world-cash on the spot. We send in the order; the machinery goes forward, the farmer pays for it, and we collect $21.06 per cent."
At the moment I will not pursue that point any further. There is one other matter to which I wish to refer briefly. In the campaign that these hon. gentlemen carry on to divide this country along class lines, the Eastern newspapers are a constant object of attack. They are referred to as the "capitalistic press," a "hired press," and all that kind of thing. I am not speaking in defence of the Canadian newspapers; they are amply able to take care of themselves. But the House will recall that during last session the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. J. F. Reid) stood up in his place and occupied over half an hour of the time of the House in the reading of a pamphlet issued by a man by the name of Murray, one time secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The House will recall my hon. friend's peroration; he stood with his hands clasped across his breast and his eyes rolled towards Heaven in such a way as to cause one to wonder whether he was practising for an experience meeting of United Grain Growers or taking his part as end-man in a minstrel troupe that was going to stage a worn-out political farce.
What did Mr. Murray say to cause all this? He said that in his judgment the time had come when Canadian manufacturers should cease financing newspapers, the avowed object of which was to destroy the manufacturers' business. I am pot going to say that Mr. Murray was right

from the standpoint of those who say: "When thine enemy strikes thee on one side of the face, just turn the other." I am not sure whether that is a correct quotation.


William Duff: You have got that all
wrong. You should study your Bible.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not here
to defend Mr. Murray, however, when he says that Canadian manufacturers should cease financing newspapers, the avowed object of which is to destroy the manufacturers' business Perhaps he was wholly wrong. But just let us turn the camera in another direction and see what picture it will produce. The same Mr. Rice Jones to Whom I referred a few moments ago appearing before this committee of the House of Commons of which the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. J. F. Reid) was a member-and I think my hon. friend had something to do with Mr. Rice Jones coming here; my information is that my hon. friend is a director of the company of which Mr. Rice Jones is general manager-on this question of financing newspapers, said what? He said, in answer to a question by the counsel for the committee: "The Grain Growers Limited paid one political organ in western Canada $100,000 in one year." What for? For advertising purposes? No, for educational and propaganda purposes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They did good work.


George Brecken Nicholson: I have no doubt that it is quite true that, as a political organ of hon. gentlemen opposite, they did good work and the Western Grain Growers, out of the profits they extracted from the producers and consumers in this country, paid that political organ $108,000 for purposes of political propaganda. Yet these same hon. gentlemen will declaim in this House against eastern newspapers as being a hired press, paid political organs.
These statements are on all fours with the whole campaign these hon. gentlemen carry on. I said in this House last year, and I repeat to-night, that no honest man has any right in the world to criticize in the least degree the business that the Western Grain Growers are doing. So far as I am able to discern, they are carrying on an honest business; they are the largest commercial organization that ever came into existence in this country; but when they are doing that, what right have they to come down into eastern Canada or to go any other place in their efforts to set class

against class in this country or to tell me that I am not carrying on an honest business: that I am extracting undue profits from the people; that I am oppressing the workingman; that the farmers are not getting their rights? I say that the whole thing is a campaign of blatant hypocrisy.


William Duff: A guilty conscience needs
no accuser.


William Cameron Edwards: This must be hurting
you.


George Brecken Nicholson: During this
debate a good many things have been said regarding the declarations of the Prime Minister in favour of giving to the province of Quebec more adequate representation in the government of this country, and hon. gentlemen opposite have become cynically sarcastic with regard to that. I must confess I was amazed to hear utterances of this kind fall from the lips of some hon. gentlemen opposite. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland), and the hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux), join in that kind of criticism of the efforts which the Prime Minister was honestly making. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), join with them in voicing the same cynical criticism of the Prime Minister's efforts.
Is there anything wrong with the declaration of the Prime Minister that he believes the province of Quebec and the French-Canadian minority of this country should have more representation in the government? Is there anything wrong with the suggestion by any public man that it would be wise and well to bring about a better understanding between the two races that are living and growing up side by side in Canada? The Prime Minister would be unworthy of the position he holds if he did not exert every ounce of influence that he has to break down misunderstandings that admittedly have existed.


Mr. CANNON:: That he brought on
himself.


George Brecken Nicholson: I do not wish to enter into a discussion with my hon. friend regarding that, because that is not my purpose in this debate. I prefer that, if possible, anything I may say with regard to that subject shall tend to create a better understanding and not a worse. We are never going to arrive at a right understanding by hurling insults across the floor of this House, one against the other.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Brecken Nicholson: The chief organ at
least in this province of hon. gentlemen opposite undertook to fasten on the Prime Minister the charge that he had at some time in his life made a statement uncomplimentary to the French-Canadian minority in Canada. The Toronto Globe had to admit that they were not telling the truth. No hon. gentleman in this House has pointed to a single utterance derogatory in the least degree to the French-Canadian population of the province of Quebec or of any other part of Canada. It is the duty of every public man, whether his position be obscure or whether he occupies a more prominent position, to do what he can to create harmony and not discord amongst our people. Let me illustrate that if I can out of an experience I have had within the past six or seven months. It was my privilege last summer to visit the battle area in France.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


George Brecken Nicholson: It was a very great privilege, whether an hon. gentleman says " Oh," or not; it was a very great privilege to meet the people in France, to see what is being done by these people who have suffered infinitely during the whole period of the war; to discuss with them the problems with which they were confronted, to see the devastated country and to get a glimpse of the spirit of the people in reconstructing that devastated area. During that period, it was our privilege to cover the whole battle area from the North sea to Paris, to travel the road that our Canadian boys travellel as they drove the Germans out of France during the last hundred days of the war, to go through that wonderful cemetery in the city of Mons where 80,000 refugees, women and children and men, were slaughtered by the Germans in the first onrush in 1914. It was our privilege to visit more than 100 cemeteries, to look upon hundreds of thousands of silent crosses, everyone typical of the sacrifice that sent the cold steel to the soul of some father or mother. On the 12th August when we arrived in the city of Lille on our way home, we got a copy of the Paris edition of the New York Herald and we saw, splashed across the front page, the announcement that a Soviet had been set up in Great Britain; that they had issued an ultimatum to the British Government that they must allow Poland to go under before the Bolshevists, and that they must clasp the blood-stained

venturesome, even perilous, and in the long run that Baptiste Canadien, notwithstanding his experience and his great ability, gave a wrong stroke with the paddle, his canoe was smashed on the rocks and Baptiste Canadien, forced to swim, was cast on the shore of Crane island. Before long, our new John the Baptiste will find that his stroke was miscalculated and, being wrecked, he will not even have Crane island as a refuge.
Mr. Speaker, I remember when I was young, which is long ago, I happened to be at the court house in Arthabasca when a very young man, a lawyer, showed a lack of professional courtesy towards Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The latter walked toward his young fellow advocate and putting his hand upon his shoulder said: "Sir, take this for a slap in the face". If it be true that great men do not die, Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George-Etienne Cartier, Sir Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine and Sir Wilfrid Laurier see and hear what is going on here below. When the latter meets the hon. member from St. Hyacinthe, he will say to him: "You have insulted my best friends, those who have helped me, backed me, fought by my side and followed me through thick and thin," and laying his hand on his shoulder he will say: "Sir, take this for a slap in the face".
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for the amendment submitted by the hon. leader of the Opposition asking for an immediate dissolution of Parliament, and I shall do so for the following reasons.
The new unionist party made this appeal to the Dominion electorate: Forget to-day that you are Liberals and Conservatives; put aside your political convictions, because the war must be won first of all; we are not the representatives of a party; we have an object in view. But now, war is over, the aim has been realized, the special mandate has been executed, make way.
In June next, the prime ministers of all the Dominions will go to England in order to discuss matters in the interests of the Empire. Mr. Lloyd George has just announced to the whole world that the meeting will be one of the most momentous events within the Empire. He also stated that Great Britain alone was unable to bear any longer the burden of expenditure entailed by the maintenance of its navy and army, and that the colonies should understand the necessity of sharing that expenditure.
You, Sir, the Prime Minister, will go to London during the month of June. What

will be your answer to Mr. Lloyd George? What is your policy concerning this contribution which the Empire requests from her colonies? Have you asked the Canadian people in what measure they are prepared to make new sacrifices for the maintenance of the navy and army of England, or whether they are prepared to make any sacrifice?
Mr. Speaker, should Mr. Lloyd George invite him to give a pledge on behalf of Canada as to her taking part in every war of England, what will be the answer of the right hon. Prime Minister? Are not the people of Canada entitled to know, before his departure, what he is going to do there? Mr. the Prime Minister, it is your duty to consult them and to get the endorsation of your policy through a general election.
The future of Canada is at stake, and before engaging in a new course, find out the country's views and the policy it favours.
The Government must be in danger, in great peril, when we see them obliged to seek to seduce members of the Opnositian. Do not the ranks of the Government's friends contain many most distinguished and qualified men? I might mention Sir L O. Taillon, Hon. Mr. Patenaude, Mr. Bisaillon, Mr. Cresse-who is longing to enter the Government-Mr. Monty, Mr. Duranteau, Mr. de Lorimier, Mr. Laeoste, Mr. Godin, my cousin Mr. de Boucherville, Mr. Bonin, Mr. Morin, Mr. Bruchesi, Mr. "urran, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Dussault, Mr. Millette, Mr. Bernard, Mr. Chatelle, Mr. Sauve; in Quebec, Three-Rivers, Sorel, Jo-liette, Sherbrooke and even in St. Hyacinthe and St. Jerome, there are a number of good supporters of the Conservative party, honourable men, well qualified men, who made great sacrifices for their party, and who would be only too glad to have their reward. Why try and draw away members cf the Opposition? Why invade our ranks?


Mr.   McM ASTER@: (Translation.) Beause we are better qualified.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: (Translation.) No, but we do not display the same craving. Mr. Speaker, let everybody remain on his wn side and all will go well.
The new party is baptized. It has three names: National alias Liberal alias Conservative.
Why three names ? Why so many aliases ? Why, Mr. Speaker, when I am given a brief in a criminal coui;t, and find several aliases to the party's name, I feel uneasy. I am sure of finding in the evidence

that the accused has tried to conceal his identity; I am sure that he has tried to arrange for an alibi, in order to be able to say, "No, sir, I was not there, I am not the man you are looking for." The Government is now seeking to deny its identity. Well, Mr. Speaker, let the honourable gentlemen change names as often as they please, they will be recognized. As the old woman said, the more they change, the less they vary.
The honourable member has spoken not only of your humble servant, but he thought well to strike a little blow by the way at the honourable member for Gaspe (Hon. Mr. Lemieux), at Sir Lomer Gouin, at the honourable member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Ver-ville), at the honourable member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil), because these honourable gentlemen have occupations outside their functions as members of this House. But it seems to me that instead of blaming them, we, the French Canadians ought to be proud to see these gentlemen fill posts of confidence, most important financial posts, posts of great responsibility, posts of honour. When we see Sir Lomer Gouin become a Director of the Bank of Montreal, the first French Canadian who was ever given that position; when we see the honourable member for Gaspe in highly sought posts, directing our Canadian and even English finances; why do they occupy such posts of honour, these posts of responsibility? It is because they are worthy of them, because they have deserved the confidence of their fellow citizens. These posts are not given to every Tom, Dick and Harry. I would say to the honorable member: But why is he not in one of them? Why is he not given one of them. I will not abuse the honourable member; he is one of my old friends; we have long fought side by side and always respected each other; if he feels the necessity of dragging us in this debate, it is his right, it is his business, I will not treat the honourable member with abuse. I pay him my compliments. When one receives compliments, it is proper to return them.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the remarks I had to make on what the honourable members said. You will allow me now to pass to something else. I have fought the battles of my party for a great number of years, and I remember what took place in 1893. It is not a matter of yesterday. In 1893, Honourable Mr. Blake, wishing to withdraw from the Canadian politics, bid adieu to the Liberal party.


An hon. MEMBER:: 1887.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) No matter; it was a little earlier than I surmised. He gave up the leadership of the Liberal party, and was replaced by the honourable sir Wilfrid Laurier. A great convention took place in Ottawa-I remember it as if it were yesterday; I was there, at the threshold of Parliament. It was a grand convention of the Liberal forces. A programme was prepared; the programme which the Liberals would follow if they came to power. There was unrest in the country at that time. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that things were in a sad plight. The situation had to be remedied. We meant to offer the electors a new programme, and secure their confidence. What was the programme of the Liberal party at that time? Two important by-elections had just taken place, the one in Montreal Centre, wherein Sir William Hingston and the honourable Mr. McShane were opponents; and the other wherein Napoleon Char-bonneau, who later became a judge, and was opposing our old friend J. A. Descarries, of Lachine. Honourable Desire Gi-rouard had just been made a Justice of the Supreme Court. The election took place on December 30th, 1895, in the County of Jacques-Cartier where I was living at the time and where I still live. They were two fierce fights. The honourable James McShane was victorious and so was our friend Charbonneau, both with rather large majorities. These two by-elections rang the nell of the Conservative party. It was in the month of December, 1895. The honourable Mackenzie Bowell dissolved the Houses in April, 1896, and the general election took place on June 23rd of the same year. Now, there was a programme to be prepared for the general election. The then Government thought well to remain in office to the very end, to prolong its life to the extreme limits, to the month of April, 1896. There had then to be a general election. What was the programme of the Liberal party? What promises did it offer to the electors? First and above all, there was the settlement of the school question. This settlement of the school question was not so complete as we French-Canadians and the Catholics would have desired. We had wished for something more than Sir Wilfrid Laurier obtained; but His Holiness Leo XIII said, "Children of my Church, the settlement which is offered to you is not complete, but acept it and pray to God for the rest." This was done. The wish of

His Holiness Leo XIII was accomplished; the settlement was accepted; the school question was put aside, and the agitation ended. What Sir Wilfrid Laurier said was not that he would settle the question, but that he would do all in his power to settle it, so as to satisfy the superior authority. And thereby he removed from the political field a burning question.
The second question brought before the electors was the deepening of the St. Lawrence river in order .to make Montreal the national port of the Dominion. The programme promised that should the Liberal party come to power, the insufficiently deep part of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec would be deepened so as to afford perfect, or at least as perfect as possible, facilities for navigation. We kept our pledge. The Government made enormous sacrifices to better the navigation bettween Quebec and Montreal. The late Hon. Mr. Tarte, who was then a member of the Government, made superhuman efforts to render this route navigable and safe.
What was the third promise made to the people? The abolition of the revisors, which the present Government wish to restore in this country-the famous revisors of the former government. When we reached the polls, we would look over the electoral lists; we would find that Paul's name was not there, that Baptiste's had gone, that Andre's had been forgotten, that Jacques' had disappeared. And they were all our Liberal friends that were missing. The Liberals promised to put an end to this system; that if they came to power their first move would be to abolish it, and to entrust the municipal councils with the electoral lists which had been very improperly taken out of their hands. And we did so.
The fourth promise to the electors was, that the public contracts would be given to the lowest tenderers, be they Liberal or Conservative. And the thing was done. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Administration was all devotion to the rights of the people, and has never consented to the granting of contracts otherwise; the lowest tenderers were those who obtained them. There were a few exceptions in unimportant matters; but as a general rule public contracts were always granted to the lowest tenderer. That is what we had promised.
We had also promised, Mr. Speaker, to insert in public contracts a clause by which the salaries of workmen, of all the employees in large public works, would be fMr. Lafortune.J
made secure; that the contractor, the subcontractor would be responsible for the salaries of the workmen-a security which did not exist hitherto. Until then, a contractor was given a contract, he handed it over to a subcontractor, the lattter turned it over to another one, and three times out of four the workman ran the risk of losing his salary. We put an end to that.
Now, we had also promised to put an end to deficits. Heretofore every accounting period ended with a deficit. Deficits, al-way deficits, we had nothing else. Sir Wilfrid Laurier came to power in 1896. He did not succeed the first year in making both ends meet, on account of the deplorable state in which his predecessors had left the finances of the country; he failed, I say, to obtain a surplus on the first year, but all the subsequent accounting periods ended with considerable surpluses. And yet we had taken these gentlemen's tariff; we had stolen their tariff, as they were pleased to repeat it on every husting. "These bad Liberals have stolen our programme; they had promised a revision of the tariff, and when they came to office, they used the same tariff as hitherto". There was a little truth in this. But what did it mean? With the same tariff we obtained surpluses when they could show nothing but deficits. What did it mean? It meant that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had an iron hand under a silk glove; that he kept the taps, the locks and padlocks tightly closed. It was not in vain that they were locked, bolted and riveted. He held the reins of power with a firm hand, and if any rebelled, their affair was soon settled. You remember, Mr. Speaker, that a former minister, an eminent man (Hon. Mr. Blair) wanted to kick over the traces. Sir Wilfrid told him: "Sir, if my policy does not suit you, we can part company". You remember another man, by whose side I have fought, with whom I have worked, a business man (the late Hon. Mr. Tarte) ; so long as he abided by the unwavering direction of Sir Wilfrid, all went well; but the day that hon. gentleman wanted to do a little bossing of his own, he was told to withdraw, and he withdrew. He tried to kick, but with no avail. He was an honourable man, I have nothing to say against him; he was only a little headstrong, having overdone that peculiarity he was invited to step out.
How is it, Mr. Speaker, that this tariff of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Hon. Mr. Fielding) gave so much prosperity to the

people of the Dominion? How is it that this tariff, which the Conservatives accused us of having stolen from them, suited so well the interests of everybody? The reason is that these hon. gentlemen knew how to apply it, as we will know still how to apply it when the member for Queen's and Shelburne comes back to power.
We had promised the revision of the tariff, and the tariff was revised, perhaps not quite as the hon. gentlemen now at your right would have liked to he, which would have suited them better, but the tariff was revised so as to do justice to all classes of society. We had promised a partial reciprocity treaty, and before 1911, before Sir Wilfrid Laurier tried to bring about such a treaty, what did our opponents say when we met them upon the hustings? "You had promised us a treaty of reciprocity with the United States; where is your treaty?" They accused us of having failed to keep our word. They accused us of having failed to carry out that part of Sir Wilfrid's programme. And later, when Sir Wilfrid intended to bring about this partial treaty with the United States, these hon. gentlemen began by applauding. I remember when the late Mr. Patterson and the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne came back from the United States and announced their success in that country, that they had succeeded in obtaining from our neighbours what the former Administrations of Sir John Macdonald, of Sir John Thompson, of Sir J. J. Abbott, of Sir Mackenzie Bowell, and of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, had failed to obtain. The United States were willing to have a reciprocity treaty, but they wanted the lion's share. Once somebody was talking to a farmer of the lion's share-allow me this digression, Mr. Speaker-and he said:	"What does that
mean, a lion's share?" The other answered:	"I am going to tell you. The lion
begins by making a small heap, and he makes a large one, then he eats both." The United States wanted the lion's share. We had wanted to make a treaty, but the Americans would give nothing. The Americans are no givers. Well, they may be willing to give, but they want two to one, sometimes three. On the last attempt made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Wilfrid said: "You do not want to grant us a just share of the privileges and the rights we claim; so, there will not be any treaty. Farewell. When you need us, let us know." Sir Wilfrid Laurier came back to this country, no treaty having been signed.
Later on, what a surprise it was to receive news from those gentlemen, to hear that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and some of his friends were invited to go to the White House for the purpose of negotiating a treaty of reciprocity; Well and good, the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne was sent there, together with the hon. Mr. Paterson. They went to the White House and came back having obtained most advantageous privileges. Conservatives applauded; Conservatives would not believe what they saw or what they heard so pleased were they to know that the offer from the White House was so large and so favourable. That occured during the evening, but they took counsel with their pillow and the next morning these hon. gentlemen said to themselves: "We are foolish; we are raving; if we let that treaty pass; we shall never be able to regain power; let us oppose it". They changed their tactics and said: "We shall state that this means annexation". They started the cry against annexation; they defeated us with that cry. The said the treaty was tantamount to annexation to the United States. Oh! how dishonest they were, Mr. Speaker! Having shown reassuring dispositions, having said that the treaty was a splendid one, they altered their mind during night. The next day, it was althogether different. They overran the country, exclaiming: "Well the reciprocity treaty which you intend to make with the United States is nothing short of annexation." They succeeded in defeating us. Thus the reciprocity treaty fell to the ground and vanished. But, Sir, had it been a question of unlimited reciprocity, your humble servant would have been the first to vote against it, but the restricted treaty which was offered us was so advantageous, specially for the farming class, for the agriculturists, that we could have seen halcyon days had we sue- * ceeded in putting it through. But they did not consent; they killed the chicken in the shell and now we grieve about those conditions.
From 1896 to 1911, has not the tariff which was put in force by our friends been most advantageous? Have not manufacturing and industrial establishments of every kind wonderfully increased in number? There are in my constituency a large number of factories and many industries of all kinds. In 1896, there were but a few, however, from 1896 to 1911, their number increased in a wonderful manner; factories sprung up as if by enchantement and all sorts of industries were established in

large numbers. The labouring classes, mechanics, workingmen found employment and earned a decent livelihood for themselves and their families. Nobody complained of the tariff; on the contrary, every one was happy. The present tariff is not altogether the same as when we were in power. The right hon. gentleman tells us: "You are free traders; you are not Liberals, you are not protectionists". I shall tell him that I am neither the one nor the other, but I am for a reasonable protection, for a moderate protection as Sir Wilfrid Laurier would have it. This is my protectionist view: Give the manufacturers a fair and reasonable protection in order that capital may get a legitimate return, but stop at that so that the consumer, the mechanic, the labourer and above all the farming class, may have their share of the sun's rays, of liberty and protection. The industrial, manufacturing, commercial and farming classes became very prosperous at that time.
Mr. Speaker, we shall be called to power before long.


Hre Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: (Translation.) Many are called but few are chosen.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I am in earnest when I say that the Liberal party will soon get into power. What will the Liberals have to do? They will have to attend to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. The boards of trade, the great corporations, the higher branches of commerce, the railway companies are clamoring for it. I am for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, which is a necessary undertaking asked for by every administration, whether conservative or liberal. The Government has so far made enormous sacrifices in order to lay out the route, to have soundings taken so as to know what was the obstruction in the way, what would be the probable cost; in short, to ascertain whether that route would be advantageous to the country.
What did they find? They found that the Northern route would cost about $110,000,000, while the Southern route would entail an expenditure of only $95,000,000. It might be a little more to-day. The figures I have given out might not be the exact amount, but we shall take it as the approximate cost of the building of the canal.
The canal would shorten considerably the distance from Georgian Bay to London; some say it would make it about 400 miles shorter, which means a saving of from

$100,000,000 to $150,000,000. If the money were spent carefully, it would be of a great benefit to the country, for it would keep at least 15,000 people at work during ten years. Is it not worth undertaking the building of that canal and should we not consider carefully the advisability of starting the work? The Chambre de Commerce and the Board of Trade of Montreal, the largest companies, the banks and the leading financial firms of the country are crying out for the construction of the Georgian Bay Canal.
I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen are not much concerned with the interest of the people since they do not listen to the advice of our leading citizens. We must build that canal. I was anxious to visit Georgian Bay; I went there and I saw the place. I realize that it would be a great mistake, -and even more, to postpone any longer the building of the canal. Connecting Georgian Bay with lake Nipissing, there is Trent river, then Turtle river, the Mattawa and Ottawa rivers to the island of Montreal, and then you may go right through to Europe without transhipment, and reduce the cost of transportation by about one or two cents for every bushel of wheat. Then why should we not build that canal instead of spending millions as we are doing now? The liberal party which will be called to replace the present government will undertake it. Hon. gentlemen may say:
Why did you not undertake the construction of the canal during the fifteen years you remained in power? The answer is very simple: the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had undertaken considerable works, such as the Quebec Bridge, the Hudson Bay Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific; he wanted to have them completed before starting on the Georgian Bay Canal. That is what I would answer to hon. gentlemen. Instead of spending our money here and there without any necessity and without any advantage to the country, they should have undertaken that work. I say that the present government is not worthy of the confidence of the people and should not remain in office any longer. Before long we shall have to build the canal.
There is another thing to ido and I have asked for it many times: I am referring to the building of a bridge between Vaudreuil and Ste. Anne. I have asked the government for assistance in order that we may build that bridge. What did they answer? They said they had no money. No money for bridges at Ste. Anne and Vaudreuil; they

are in the province of Quebec, they are not international bridges and there are no funds available for works of that kind. Did the millions spent in Vancouver apply to an international undertaking? And what about the money given to St. John and Halifax? They gave us that answer like a man who does not wish to answer at all. When you do not wish to help you always have a good answer to give. But I say that it is a shame to delay the construction of Vaudreuil-St. Anne bridge any longer. Think of an important city like Montreal, with a population of 600,000, whose people to pass from the island, have to use canoes, and the same lack of facilities is felt as regards vehicles.
People have been drowned, lives have been lost, because of this condition of things. And when we ask the hon. ministers who represent the Province of Quebec to help us in building the bridges, we are told: "It cannot be done, sir, there is no money, The time will come when you will discover that the people are getting restless; the hon. mambers will realize that the people are irritated, that they are getting angry; the time will come when hon. gentlemen will have to account for their doings, and the more grasping will have been the administration, the more severe will we be with these gentlemen.
What is the next plank of our platform? We have already stated what the liberals will do: We shall exact an account from those who govern us. We shalll ask for an account of the millions which they have had in hand since 1911. We shall enquire what has become of those millions. Where are those millions which have been given you in the people's interest? We shall have a great, national investigation, there will be no cuts and thrusts, but we will investigate everywhere, we will make a thorough search of all the public departements, asking the hon. gentlemen to produce vouchers for the money which has been entrusted to them. Then will they find the time long, then will they find that the people are severe, then will they find it difficult to produce an account with vouchers. Yet, that is what we shall ask them to do. We shall ask them how it happens that public offices are filled with employees of all nationalities, except French-Cana-dians. We will demand from those who represent the Province of Quebec the reason why they have tolerated such discrimination. You have but to visit the Publics Works and all the large departments, and take a list of those who are there, to realize
how unfairly our compatriots have been treated. The liberal party will see that all be reinstated who have been dismissed, turned out, without an investigation being made, or with but a semblance of investigation, and this, because their only sin, their only fault, was that they were liberals. Our friends who have been turned out of power will be returned to their respective positions. We shall investigate and find out why these gentlemen have been driven out of power. We shall have no difficulty,
I assure you, in proving the flagrant injustice which has beeen done them.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec is isolated. My hon. friends on the other side of the House will forgive me, but, the Province of Quebec is not isolated. Have we not three ministers in the Cabinet? Have we not the hon. minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) who represents the Catholics, those who speak French as well as those who speak English? Is he not an honourable man? Does he not represent us in the Cabinet? Have we not the hon. minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) in the Cabinet? Have we not the hon. Mr. Blondin in the Senate? It is true that he was beaten twice, but he has been given a seat in the Senate as a compensation for these two defeats: "Go, take a seat in the Senate, sir, you will be given a portfolio, you shall represent the Montreal electors". We have three ministers in the Cabinet. We are told that Quebec is isolated? Not at all, though we may not have all that should be coming to us, notwithstanding our three representatives. They are honourable, distinguished men, who represent us as well as they can.
There is another thing which astonishes me, Mr. Speaker, that is, that, the liberal unionists should have such little influence in the Union Cabinet which is formed of liberal and conservative unionists. Have not four judges been appointed lately? Is there a "rouge-bleu" amongst them? Is there a liberal judge amongst the four who have been apointed? Where then are the unionists? What influence have these gentlemen that they should have been silent in the face of those appointments? What is the influence of the Liberal-Unionists, of the so-called Liberals who are Conservatives? What is the influence of these gentlemen? I would have thought that the unionist ministers would have had something to do with the Government, but, judging from evidence, they are doing absolutely nothing, they let everything go, swallow every new appointment, without a protest.

We are not isolated, but we are badly represented.
They shall have to face those from whom they have withdrawn the right to vote: the people who had comme to settle in this country at the cost of great sacrifices; they who have been disfranchised for fear that they would vote against the Government. That is an injustice.
They will get a square deal at the hands of the Liberals who will be called upon to form a government in place of this unfortunate administration; they will be given back their franchise of which - I shall not use too harsh a word because I might be called to order by the chair - they were so unscrupulously deprived.


Joseph Archambault: (Translation.) Fradulently.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) I
dislike to so characterize it, but that is the actual fact.
I remember a contest which gave me much trouble; I had to work day and night. It was the election in Chateauguay and Hon. Sydney Fisher was the candidate. The distinguished and elderly gentleman had accepted to contest the seat in Chateauguay. His opponent was Mr. Morris who, along with his good conservative friends of Ottawa, had caused the people to believe that a bridge would be built from Chateauguay towards Lachine as well as a dam at Caughnawaga. Vainly did we keep telling them that it was merely an electoral scheme, that there was no sincerity in such promises, that it was a subterfuge and they should not rely on such promises. Hon. Mr. Sevigny was there, going through the country and promising the construction of the Chateauguay bridge, and so the people of Beauharnois, Chateauguay and Huntingdon actually believed that a bridge would be built. In vain did we assure them: " It is all nonsense, you know very well that the government will not build that bridge ". They replied: " We are sure to get our bridge ". Well, it turned out that the bridge never was built and the thing was not even mentioned after the election. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite: Before Hon. Mr. Fisher leaves this world, will you be gentlemanly enough to go and apologize to him? Will you go to the man who is at death's door and say that you have not been fair towards him, that you have deprived him of his mandate under false pretences and by means of false statements? Hon. Mr. Fisher would at last have the satisfaction of knowing before he dies that 
hon. gentlemen have not been fair to him. I hope they will do so. I wpuld be putting it rather strongly to say that they robbed us; but I contend that they secured the election of Chateauguay by means of that bridge scheme which they never had any intention to carry out. It was merely a mean electoral trick on their part. I charge you, gentlemen, with having secured the votes in that constituency under false pretences and let me assure you that in our part of the country we know how to deal with men who resort to such tactics. They may change names and go under various alliases, but we know where to find them and how to inflict the punishment they deserve.
There is another thing which the Liberal party will recommend when it gets into power. I refer to the widening of the Victoria bridge where a most painful accident occurred. The bridge is too narrow for pedestrians and vehicles. Last summer there was a collision between two motor cars and the result was that a young man, 25 years of age, fell over the parapet and was drowned. It is absolutely necessary that the bridge should be widened. We have granted millions upon millions to the Victoria Bridge Company with a view to securing a good and safe throughfare. The road must be improved in order to avoid a repetition of the accident which occurred last summer. The man who caused the accident was arrested and he is to be tried in March next. I hope he will come out of it all right. But, unfortunately we had to deplore the death of a citizen of St. Constant.
A bridge must also be built at Longueuil. The necessity of such a bridge was evidenced, last summer, when the Victoria Bridge was damaged by fire. The latter remainded closed for a long time causing much inconvenience to the public. I say to the hon. member of Chambly-Verchhres (Mr. Archambault) : " You will have to make superhuman efforts, sir, to secure for your constituency the bridge which it needs so badly, and if you require my help as I need your own for the construction of a bridge between Vaudreuil and St. Anne, I shall give it to you. We shall reciprocate.
Before taking my seat, there is one question of vital importance for me that I would like to discuss.
I mean the protection we owe to the farmers, to the tobacco growers. There is in this country a considerable industry in the hands of the farmers, the tobacco industry. I have had the honour of representing the county of Montcalm for twa

sessions, and I know what takes place there.
I told these good electors in leaving that county to represent the county of Jacques-Cartier, that they would not lose me; that any aid, protection and work which your humble servant could do, should be forthcoming on behalf of those to whom I owe so much. The hon. member from Montcalm (Mr. Seguin) who succeeded me has done all that was possible for him to do, and has fulfilled his duty thoroughly. I have nothing that I could reproach him, but he has not yet succeeded in obtaining from the Government the aid and protection which we owe to these good electors. We have an important industry, that of tobacco growing. Lately there have been delagations, steps have been taken associations have been formed, to promote the interest of tobacco raising in the country, and I am sure that the Westerners, the men of Kent and Essex, the hon. members who represent these electoral districts, will not forget this industry. They will insist, I am sure, in asking that the Government do justice to these tobacco growers. What must be done, Mr. Speaker? When Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power, when I entered this House for the first time, I began to agitate to better the condition of the tobacco growers and we succeeded very well. From a tax of ten cents a pound which existed then upon the importation of foreign tobacco, by virtue of many solicitations, of untiring insistence, of repeatedly renewing the attack, we succeeded in having the tax upon foreign tobacco fixed at 28 cents per pound. It was a great improvement that helped the electors of Montcalm, Kent, Essex, Berthier, L'As-somption, Farnham, Joliette and Terrebonne. It enabled these electors to succeed in their work, to better their social positions and the condition of their families, and, thank God, the men who laboured for the tobacco interest from 1896 to 1911 have done meritorious work. The duty on foreign tobacco should be considerably increased by the Government; I mean by the Liberal Government when it comes to power. For I have not much confidence in the present Government, I have not much confidence that it will do anything to better the condition of the planters; we must wait for the Liberals. Foreign tobacco still comes into our country in altogether too large a proportion. We still import about 20 million pounds of foreign tobacco, while in fact this importation should be kept down to a dozen million pounds at most. The
consequence would be that our growers would produce more tobacco, would improve its quality, would make greater sacrifices to make it more desirable, more marketable, and a higher duty would insure enormous profits to the planter. The rate of duty which we should ask is immaterial but it must be sufficiently high to hamper in a due measure the coming in of the foreign tobacco which is competing with our Canadian product. This, Sir, is what should be done for the growers who have done us the honour of electing us in our respective counties, and to whom it would only be doing justice.
There is an industry, Sir, which does not exist in this country, but which should. Our farmers should be given the protection necessary to encourage them to grow beets. None but the farmers understand the importance and the necessity of Go.vernment protection for this industry, which is nonexistent in Quebec. How is it that beetgrowing is a successful industry in Ontario and that we do not have it in Quebec? How can this be explained? It is because the ministers who represent us do not take the trouble to study these agricultural questions, and abandon the farmers in their difficulties. How is it that the hon. member from St. Anns (the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty) who has to represent us in the cabinet does not take the necessary measures to protect the beet industry in this country? The hon. minister will say: "That does not concern me."
The hon. Minister of Justice will say: "It is none of my business, why should I bother about beets? Is it worth my while?" If the hon. minister knew how important and necessary it is, for the farmers of the province of Quebec to establish the beet industry, he would give a premium- to farmers to encourage them to make preparations for this new industry. In doing this he would render a very great service to the electors, especially to those from the country.
The minister is bound to help us-he is appointed for that special purpose, to safeguard the interests of the people. Let me therefore tell the minister, that if he only devoted a fraction of his time to this industry, we should be very grateful to him, and when the time for his retirement comes, which by the way is near at hand, ha would have the satisfaction of saying: "When I was in office, I did something for my electors." We, therefore await with confidence his answer, trusting he will give

this matter his serious consideration, in our behalf, we, the people of the farming community'll made mention of "we" with a purpose, as I am in need of this industry at home in order to improve my farm and help to defray the expenses of the cattle that are in my stables. The beetroot industry would prove very advantageous in order to enable us to further improve our farms.	j ,	<
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to a matter which is of mutual interest to both of us. This is the request I addressed to him during the past years: Do construct a viaduct or a tunnel under the canal so that the people of the cities of Emard, C6te Saint Paul and Saint Gabriel may circulate to and fro with ease, without apprehension and loss of time between their home and Montreal. I have shown the minister in what sad plight these people are. One would imagine he was deaf. Yet he seems to be all attention when I make a request, but I must add that he very seldom gratifies my wishes. I insisted on the importance and necessity of having this tunnel built. Can you imagine a population of
15.000	to 20,000 and even more, perhaps
30.000	souls waiting patiently for boats to pass through the canal so that the bridge may be opened to traffic again and allow them_ to return to work? Yes, a hardworking class of the people, where fathers, boys and girls are to be found awaiting patiently and wondering when the bridge will open so that they may proceed to their daily work. If they arrive half an hour late, the employer who checks them will deduct so much an hour, so much a day for the lost time. To think that the honourable minister is responsible for all this! I further charge him with turning a deaf ear to all these legitimate requests of my electors. His home is there in the neighbourhood and if he does not know the facts of the case, he should go and see for himself and verify the facts. These poor people are constantly writing to me as follows: "Mr. Lafortune, for God's sake when shall we have a tunnel?" I can only answer: When it will please the Minister of Justice who is your representative, to build one-sorry to say he is not often willing."A flood occurred and a number of people barely escaped being drowned; the bridge was carried away and nc means, absolutely no means was left to cross over. This does not concern the minister for he lives in his palace, his family is free from cares, he has no anxiety,

If he only felt the pangs of anxiety, if he but knew what transpires in the life of these poor people, perhaps he would stop to think. But the honourable minister will come before the people, perhaps he will soon be seeking from these good people a renewal of their confidence. They will say to him: Sir, that tunnel that Mr. Lafortune so often begged of you, what has become of it? Where is it? It is still to be built. It is not important, no, of no importance whatever-it will open his eyes.1
These are things that the Liberal party will have to do when they return to office. All our pledges to the people between the years 1896 and 1911, such as assistance, help and protection we have fulfilled.
Mr. Speaker, I have enumerated a number of things which the Liberal party will be called to do when they ascend to power. We shall ask these gentlemen who sit across the floor of this House to render a strict account of the things they have done, those they have left undone and the good deeds they might have done. Far in the distant past these words were flashed across a wall: "Counted, weighed and found wanting." Well, we shall weigh these honourable gentlemen's actions and shall ascertain whether they come up to the mark and have fulfilled the requirements. As for myself, your humble servant, I am a Liberal and will continue to be one as long as my confidence rests with my leaders.
I am not the slave of any one; I have no need of the favours of any political party in order to live; I will remain in the ranks of the Liberal party as long as I have confidence in the leaders who are an honour to the party-
At the time of the 1911 election, in Montcalm, a young man offered himself and was selected a candidate by a substantial majority of his fellow citizens. Your humble servant refused to have his name go to the convention. I said: "No, sir, I have no time to bother with that kind of conventions. I will put my name before the great convention, before the general convention of all the electors of the county of Montcalm, and if a gentleman of the opposite party comes forward hoping to succeed through a division of the Liberal vote, I have signed my declaration and have had it published in the newspapers,
I will retire, will shake hands with the candidate chosen at the convention, and we shall crush the opponent". That is what I said in my declaration of principles, my declaration of faith. I am a Liberal, but

I do not bend my knee before men; before God, yes, but not before men. So long as I have confidence I will remain with my leader, I will remain with my party, I will remain the Liberal I am. Meanwhile, I pledge my loyalty to England, my heart to my country. Above all, I remain a faithful lover of Liberty.
On the motion of Mr. Blake, the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Right Hon. C. J. Doherty, the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Friday, February 25th, 1921